Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on Friday, 18th May, for the Whitsuntide Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Monmouth (Monmouth Division), in the room of Sir Charles Leolin Forestier-Walker, Baronet, K.B.E. (deceased).—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Newport Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions
for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Nottingham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

London Passenger Transport Board (Interim Financial Arrangements).

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Maidstone Waterworks Bill,

Watchet Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Lowestoft Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Stockport Extension Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Taunton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 12th June.

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation (No. 2) Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. CHORLTON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the present position of the use of Indian cotton in Lancashire; and if there is yet a definite prospect of the purchase by India of more textiles from Lancashire as the consumption of Indian cotton is increased?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Following the Ottawa Agreement, the Lancashire Indian Cotton Committee was set up to promote the greater use of Indian cotton in this country, and I am glad to say that during the last year there has been a considerable increase in the quantities of Indian cotton imported and delivered to spinners. According to statistics published by the Liverpool Cotton Association, the deliveries of East Indian cotton to spinners in Great Britain have amounted to over 229 thousand bales since the 1st August, 1933. The deliveries for the corresponding periods in 1932–33 and 1931–32 were 143 thousand and 154 thousand bales respectively. The total imports of East Indian cotton for the same periods, as published by the association, show an even greater increase, namely, nearly 292 thousand bales in
1933–34 as compared with 163 thousand bales in 1932–33 and 117 thousand bales in 1931–32. As regards the second part of the question, I have no doubt that, as the use of Indian cotton in Lancashire increases, there will be an improved market for Lancashire textiles in India.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is there any prospect of a definite progressive agreement being made which will provide for an increase in the buying of textiles by India as the consumption of Indian cotton is increased?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must ask for notice of a question with regard to an agreement.

MACHINERY.

Mr. LIDDALL: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the 18,470 tons of machinery, valued at £3,395,137, imported during the first four months of 1934 were imported duty free on the ground that similar machinery of British manufacture was not available?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No separate record is kept of the weight of machinery imported free of duty under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932. In terms of value, the machinery delivered for home consumption free of duty under licence during the months in question is estimated at something under one-fifth of the total imports of machinery, excluding from the latter the value of machinery entered duty free under Empire preference which was approximately £206,000.

DOMESTIC AND FANCY GLASS.

Mr. LIDDALL: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of domestic and fancy glass were increased from 6,830 cwt. in April, 1932, to 33,189 cwt. in April, 1934; and, having regard to the fact that the duty on this glass was at the rate of 50 per cent. up to 26th April, 1932, on which date it was reduced to 20 per cent. and that one firm has already been compelled to close down, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the situation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. He has no doubt observed that an Order has just been made imposing increased duties upon these goods.

ADDITIONAL IMPORT DUTIES (PUBLICATIONS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider excluding from the operation of the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1934, the publications of learned and scientific societies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question of excluding the publications of learned and scientific societies from the operation of the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1934, is one in the first instance for the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, to whom any representations should be made by the parties concerned.

HOLLAND.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement on the subject of the negotiations for a trading agreement between this country and Holland?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is hoped that the negotiations will be opened some time next month.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in these negotiations the interests of horticulturists in this country, particularly the rose growers, will not be overlooked?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.

TILES.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the increased imports of tiles from 5,563 cwt. for the four months ended 30th April, 1932, to 94,862 cwt. for the corresponding period of 1934; and what percentage of this increase came from Empire countries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the increase to which my hon. Friend refers, which relates to imports of glazed wall and hearth tiles only. Imports of tiles from British countries are negligible in amount, and do not account for any part of the increase in question.

BATHS.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to safeguard British labour against the increased imports of baths, Which increased by 1,732
tons for the four months ending 30th April, 1934, compared with the corresponding period for 1932; and are these increased imports increasing the favourable trade balance which the countries concerned have with Great Britain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any question of an increased duty on baths is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the first instance. As regards the last part of the question, the great bulk of the imports of iron and steel baths are derived from Germany.

WINES (NOMENCLATURE).

Mr. HARVEY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what instructions with regard to the nomenclature of wines have been given to the British delegates now attending the London Conference of the International Union for the Protection of Property; and is he aware of the principle recognised that such nomenclature is generally recognised as geographic rather than generic?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Instructions to delegates of His Majesty's Government at international conferences are necessarily confidential, and I am therefore not at liberty to disclose them. With regard to the last part of the question, I do not think that the principle referred to can be said to be generally recognised.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has been received from the Japanese Government with regard to the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government following the breakdown in the negotiations with regard to Japanese cotton exports; and, if so, what has been the reply?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I saw the Japanese Ambassador on the 17th May and he raised certain points about the measures announced to be taken in the Colonial Empire. These questions are being considered.

Brigadier-General NATION (for Mr. BARTON): 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in his negotiations with the Japanese Government, he will bear in mind the claims of industries outside the textile trade which are being adversely affected by Japanese competition?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on 7th May.

Mr. CHORLTON: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will publish a memorandum showing the extent to which the textiles of United Kingdom origin have been displaced by textiles from Japan in the markets of the British Crown Colonies?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer involves a long and complicated table which is being prepared. It will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT when ready.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time find out whether any English firms are actually engaged in selling goods manufactured in Japan to British Crown Colonies?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. SMITH: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to grant any financial assistance to the shipping industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answers which have been given to previous questions on this subject. The consultations are proceeding.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Cabinet is really considering the question of giving the shipping industry any support whatever with a view to giving employment to those who are unemployed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; the employment aspect of this question is constantly before us.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the Government will be in a position to make a definite announcement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is very difficult to name a date when there are so many interests to be consulted. We are taking the best means at our disposal to thrash out these problems thoroughly.

TRADE BALANCES.

Mr. MITCHESON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the adverse balance of visible trade in the first four months of this year was £21,500,000 greater than in the same period last year; and, as the whole of our visible and invisible trade during the whole of last year showed an adverse balance, what steps he proposes to take to deal with this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The excess of imports over exports of merchandise during the first four months of this year was £17,500,000 greater than in the corresponding period of 1933, due mainly to increased imports of materials for industry at, in many cases, enhanced prices. It is probable that with the increase in the balance of visible trade there has been an increase in invisible exports, and it would be unsafe to assume that the one increase more than counterbalanced the other.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that all the items showed a small adverse balance, and will there not be a large total adverse balance unless steps are taken?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not prepared to enter into the region of prophecy.

DOMINIONS (JAPANESE IMPORTS).

Captain MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can now state what action has been taken by any of the Dominions with regard to the imposition of quotas upon Japanese imports?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): So far as I am aware, action has not been taken by any of the Dominions to impose quotas on Japanese imports.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. CAPORN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the changed conditions and the additional information now available as a result of tariff experience, and with a view to saving the time and expense involved in individual trade applications to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, the Government will take action to secure the re-
consideration by that committee of the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1932?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. It is open to the committee at any time to reconsider all or any of the duties imposed on their recommendation. I have no power to interfere with them in the performance of their statutory functions, and it would be improper for me to attempt to do so.

BRICKS.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if any representations have been made to the Import Duties Advisory Board concerning the large increase in the imports of bricks which, for the four months ending 30th April, 1934, was 34,014,000 in excess of the corresponding period for 1933; and what percentage was imported from Empire countries?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As regards the first part of the question, it is for the industry concerned to make such representations as it may think necessary direct to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. As regards the second part, during the four months in question the imports from Empire countries amounted to 016 per cent. of the total.

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of countries with which bargaining over the imposition of Silk Duties has to be carried on; and when definite action in the direction of the imposition of such duties is to be expected?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The position of the Silk Duties in relation to trade negotiations now proceeding with France has been discussed with the representatives of the industry. So soon as these negotiations are brought to a satisfactory conclusion, it will, I hope, be possible to take immediate action in the matter.

Mr. HANNON (for Mr. REMER): 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a report has yet been issued from the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the revision of the Silk Duties; and if he can make any statement on this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Derby, South, on 22nd May, 1933, in which it was explained that it would not be in the public interest to answer questions of this nature. In reply to the second part, I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter.

TABLE GLASS-WARE.

Brigadier-General NATION (for Mr. BARTON): 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will be able in the near future to announce when a decision with regard to the application for an increased duty on imported table glass-ware will be made?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: An Order giving effect to the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in regard to imported glass-ware was made by the Treasury last night and published in the Press this morning.

CANADA (IMPORTED MANILA ROPE).

Brigadier-General NATION (for Mr. BARTON): 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware of the fact that manila rope manufactured in Holland is allowed to be imported into Canada on terms far more favourable than rope made in England; and will he make inquiries with a view to at least equal treatment being meted out to British manufacturers?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am informed that manila rope manufactured in the United Kingdom is not able to qualify for the British preferential rate in Canada, because more than 50 per cent. of its cost arises from raw material which is not grown within the Empire. As suggested by the hon. Member, I am making inquiries into the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (ELECTIONS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 15.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what instructions have been issued to officers commanding barracks or military depots regarding the admission to barracks at election times of motor cars intended to convey electors to the poll; and if he will take steps to ensure that no hindrances are put in the way of military electors desirous of the assistance of transport to the poll?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No specific instructions regarding the admission of motor cars have been issued. The instructions do, however, prohibit canvassing in quarters, and I think that the entrance into barracks of motor cars to take electors to the poll on behalf of political organisations must be regarded as analogous to canvassing.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the negotiations which have been proceeding between himself and representatives of the herring fishing industry as to the possibility of assisting the industry in its present plight have been completed; and whether he can make a statement as to the result?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The modified proposals which the herring industry put forward last week are being actively considered, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Sir M. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a definite statement, because, as he knows, the industry is very anxiously awaiting the result of these negotiations?

Sir G. COLLINS: I realise the urgency of the matter, and immediately a statement can be made it will be made.

Sir M. WOOD: If I put down a question on Tuesday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer then?

Sir G. COLLINS: I cannot give an undertaking, but I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Cannot anything be done in the way of propaganda like "Drink more milk" and "Eat more fruit," saying "Eat more herring"? It is one of the most nourishing of foods.

DAMAGE BY DEER.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the position of the projected Bill for the prevention of damage by red deer; what is the cause of the long delay
in issuing the Bill; and when the Bill will be presented to the House?

Sir G. COLLINS: As regards the first two parts of the question, discussions are still taking place with a view to overcoming the difficulties of framing a practical and generally acceptable measure for dealing with the subject referred to. As regards the last part, I regret there is no possibility of proceeding with the Bill in the present Session.

Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the agricultural industry it is thought that the responsibility for blocking this Measure lies with the Scottish Office? Can be give some assurance on the point?

Sir G. COLLINS: The responsibility undoubtedly rests with the Scottish Office, but our difficulty has been the difficulty that has existed before of drafting a suitable Bill to deal with the whole problem.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.

Mr. H. STEWART: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why no sheep farmer has been appointed to the advisory committee on agriculture; and whether, in view of the importance of sheep farming in Scotland, he will consider appointing one or more representatives of this branch of agriculture at the earliest moment?

Sir G. COLLINS: Although no person was appointed to the Scottish Advisory Council on Agriculture as representing any particular interest, and while it will, of course, be possible for other experts to be invited to join the members at any meeting for consultation on particular subjects, the question of the representation of the pastoral sheep farming industry has been considered by the council and I have decided to add to the council by the appointment of a member with practical experience in pastoral farming.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTEY (MINE EXPLOSION, LEIGH).

Mr. TINKER: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has seen the result of the coroner's inquest held on the five persons who were killed at the Plank Lane colliery explosion on 30th April; and if it is his intention to hold an inquiry under Section 83 of the Mines Act of 1911?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have received a full report of the proceedings at the inquest, and I am advised that a further public inquiry would not be likely to add materially to the results of the very thorough investigations which have already been made. But I am quite ready to consider any reasoned representations that may be made to me on that point.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Gentleman says he has seen the report. I have seen a newspaper report, and it says that
the explosion was caused by shot-firing setting alight gas ordinarily present but which was undetected.
Surely that is sufficient to warrant the hon. Gentleman having an inquiry?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see I said that I have seen a full report, and it is on the full report that I have given my answer.

Mr. T. SMITH: Are we to take it that the Press report is inaccurate?

Mr. BROWN: I pass no comment on the Press reports. The hon. Member must make up his own mind about them. The full report leads me to believe that further inquiry would not add to what we know.

Mr. SMITH: Is the Press report of that inquiry inaccurate?

Mr. BROWN: I have seen so many Press reports that I cannot be expected to answer as to that.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: If there is to be no inquiry, and no published report of such inquiry, how are hon. Members who are interested to know what happened?

Mr. BROWN: I have said already that I am prepared to receive any reasoned representations.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister satisfied that every possible precaution is taken to avoid these terrible disasters which are happening too frequently to-day?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that the answer is "Yes."

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.

Mr. LEWIS: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has yet received any official communication from the Government of South Africa on the subject of the future administration of the various native protectorates adjoining the territory of the Union of South Africa?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have received a personal letter from General Hertzog in which he submits certain reasons for asking that the question of the transfer of these territories to the Union may be further considered.

Mr. LEWIS: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether, in the event of His Majesty's Government deciding that some transfer should take place of part or all of these territories, this House will first have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: I have already stated that provision is made for that in the statement made on behalf of the then Government when the South Africa Act was before the House.

Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any request or communication has been received from the protectorates themselves with regard to their future position?

Mr. THOMAS: No, I have not received any particular request.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. LECKIE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when he proposes to put into operation a scheme of overseas settlement in one of the British Dominions on the lines of the scheme approved by the Overseas Settlement Department in connection with Argentina?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: On the question of future migration policy I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) on the 15th May. I would only add that while the Oversea Settlement Department is naturally interested in the Argentine scheme referred to by the hon. Member, it is in no way responsible for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. HANNON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if his attention has been called to the declaration made by the Minister of Finance in His Majesty's Dominion of the Irish Free State, which indicated a desire for the settlement of the differences between this country and the Irish Free State; and if any negotiations are in process with this object in view?

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the differences outstanding between Great Britain and the Irish Free State?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have seen a report of the statement by the Minister of Finance of the Irish Free State, to which my hon. Friend refers, and I was glad to note its conciliatory tone. Later speeches, however, which have been made in the Irish Free State do not unfortunately seem to confirm any hope which might be derived from Mr. McEntee's statement. Notwithstanding this, as I have said before, and as I now repeat, if a satisfactory basis for discussion can be found we are ready at any time to enter into negotiations with the Irish Free State Government for the settlement of all outstanding questions.

Mr. HANNON: Is the House to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that His Majesty's Government are prepared at any time when a gesture is made at the instance of the Irish Free State to consider carefully and sympathetically some means of putting an end to this deplorable state of affairs?

Mr. THOMAS: I have repeatedly stated, notwithstanding all the provocation and statements from the other side, that the door has never been shut by His Majesty's Government.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman think of taking the initiative?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. THOMAS: I am asked whether I saw a certain statement made by the Finance Minister. I saw it and appreciated it, and thought, "This may be an opening." Within a week Mr. de Valera
makes his statement and says, "We will never pay." What earthly use is there in my taking the initiative?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is it now simply a question of payment or nonpayment? Is there not a difficult general situation created which could be alleviated by a word from the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. THOMAS: If the words: "The door is still open," will do it, I repeat them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask whether the time has not now arrived for us to stretch out the right hand of friendship to the Irish. Let us be big enough. They have stood by us on many occasions.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to make a speech.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask if the time is not opportune and if we cannot be big enough to settle our differences? Give the Irish what they want.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CARNEGIE PHYSICAL TRAINING COLLEGE.

Mr. DENMAN: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if, in view of the fact, to which attention has been called in the twentieth annual report of the Carnegie Trust, that Carnegie Hall suffers from the handicap that teachers proposing to take a year's course are faced with immediate expenditure and no increase in maximum salary, he will say whether any steps are being taken to remove this handicap?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend's attention has been drawn to the report to which the hon. Member refers. The position as regards the salary of teachers, who have attended the Carnegie Physical Training College is not a peculiar one; it is no different from that of any other teachers who have taken an extended period of training. The question of the alteration of the relevant provisions of the Burnham scales is, in the first instance, a matter for the Burnham Committees, to whom, it is understood, representations have already been made by the authorities of the college.

Mr. DENMAN: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the committee are likely to take this matter into their consideration quickly?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I cannot say, and, in view of the fact that the matter will probably come before the Burnham Committee, I cannot express an opinion.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Mr. LECKIE: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware of the desire of local authorities generally that the age of obligation to attend school should be raised to 15 years by Statute; and if he will explain why recent applications of authorities for the raising of the school age within their respective areas by bylaw are being refused or deferred?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend is aware that a number of local education authorities are in favour of raising the school age to some higher age than 14. The grounds on which the Board have felt unable to approve certain recent proposals to raise the school age to 15 by by-law were, partly, that they were not satisfied as to the educational arrangements proposed and, partly, that they did not consider the areas in question sufficiently separated from the surrounding areas to prevent difficulties arising from the existence of different leaving ages for children residing inside and outside those areas. The applications which have been deferred were so deferred to enable the authorities concerned to consider various matters which required examination.

Sir P. HARRIS: Are we to understand from the Government that they will receive sympathetically any proposals from local areas for passing by-laws to raise the school-leaving age?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The hon. Gentleman will have heard from my reply the kind of considerations which actuate the Board in giving their approval. Where these considerations are satisfied I have no reason to anticipate that the Board will necessarily raise objections.

Mr. TINKER: Seeing that there is a strong feeling in favour of raising the school-leaving age, could not the Board consider raising it all over the country, and thus obviate any question of trouble between one district and another?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why cannot any boy stay at school as long as he wants? Is there any reason for conscription to be applied to these boys? They are able to make up their own minds.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AUXILIARY POSTMEN.

Sir P. HARRIS: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the number of auxiliary postmen on the 1st January, 1930, and what was the number on the same date this year; what would be the estimated cost of raising their maximum to the same as established men in their respective grades; and whether he proposes to do anything to remove their grievances?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The number of auxiliary postmen on the 1st January, 1930, was 12,207, and the number on the same date this year was 12,344. These men are paid at rates which were fixed by the Industrial Court in 1927; and if they were paid at the maximum hourly rates of the corresponding established full-time postmen the cost would amount to £186,000 a year. As I informed the hon. Member in reply to his question on the 16th April the problem of part-time labour is a very difficult one, but the matter is constantly under review with the object of improving the position. In this connection I may say that it is now the practice both in London and in the Provinces to give preference for employment as auxiliary postman to ex-service men in receipt of pensions, while provision is made for assigning to auxiliary postmen annually a certain number of full-time posts. During the past three years, nearly 1,300 auxiliary postmen have been appointed to full-time posts.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Does that apply to ex-service men from the Great War, or ex-service regulars?

Sir E. BENNETT: To both in varying degrees. Preference is given to regular ex-service men, and after that to non-regulars.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Am I to understand that the whole of the regular ex-service men will have to be engaged before the Great War ex-service men are given consideration?

Sir E. BENNETT: Not necessarily.

DISMISSAL.

Mr. GROVES: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that G. H. Page, of the Eastern District office, has been dismissed after 20 years' service owing to his participation in football coupon betting, and that the authorities have declined to give the man a testimonial as to his general character and activities; and whether he will review the case and, as the man has to support a wife and five children, give him a further chance?

Sir E. BENNETT: I am aware of the circumstances of this case. Mr. Page was dismissed for dishonest conduct and betting. I regret that it is not possible to offer Mr. Page further employment in the Post Office, or to furnish him with a clear certificate of character.

Mr. GROVES: In view of the fact that the Government do not propose to include football coupon betting in their Betting Bill and to make it illegal, can the case be reconsidered?

Sir E. BENNETT: Mr. Page was dismissed for dishonest conduct as well as betting. Every postal officer knows perfectly well that betting is prohibited.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (POLITICAL ADDRESSES).

Major EDMONDSON: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the difficulties that are frequently arising in connection with the broadcasting of controversial political matter, he will consider the desirability of reverting to the practice that previously existed in regard to broadcasts of this kind?

Sir E. BENNETT: The adoption of this suggestion would be out of harmony with the resolution concerning the broadcasting service which was approved by a large majority of this House on the 22nd February, 1933.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (CONTRACTS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Gloster Aircraft Company, of Brock-worth, are contractors to his Department; whether any orders have recently been given to this firm; and, if so, will he state their nature and amount?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Yes, Sir; contracts have recently been placed with this company for a supply of the Gauntlet type of aeroplane, with spare parts. It would be contrary to established practice to disclose contract values.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (PEDESTRIANS' CROSSINGS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the number of pedestrian crossing-places now in experimental use in the Metropolitan area?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): As was intimated in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) on 17th May, it is hoped that by the middle of June a considerable number of pedestrian crossing-places will be in operation in London.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: How many of these crossings will be established by the middle of June?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot give an answer to that question yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LANDS (GROUND RENTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Commissioners of Crown Lands are authorised to modify ground rents on Crown property, in the interests of the property as a whole, on their own initiative, or whether in all such cases the sanction of the Treasury is required?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. Cases involving measures so unusual as a reduction of ground rents would come within the scope of the general rule affecting all Government Departments under which specific Treasury authority is required for financial arrangements of a novel character.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in certain cases in Regent Street the rack rents received from the premises are only about one and a-half times the amount of the
ground rent, and can he not see how impossible it is for business people to carry on in such circumstances?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does he not also see from that that the Government are the worst landlords?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Nationalise the land; that is the only solution for that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-NAVAL MEN (COLOMBIAN ENGAGEMENT).

Mr. MANDER: 36.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements have previously been made with the Colombia Government for the recruitment of British subjects for its Navy; how long these have been in existence; and with what other Governments such arrangements have been, or are, in existence?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The arrangements for manning the Colombian destroyers have been made direct by the Colombian Government with the persons concerned, and neither in this case nor, so far as I am aware, in any previous similar case, have arrangements been made between His Majesty's Government and the Colombian or any other foreign Government. Officers and men have not infrequently been lent by His Majesty's Government to foreign Governments in an advisory capacity, for example, as instructors or members of naval missions, but I presume that the question does not relate to cases of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. MITCHESON: 38.
asked the Secretary of Stae for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make on the Disarmament Conference?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position on the question of disarmament?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Perhaps in the absence of my right hon. Friend the House will allow me to answer these questions. The General Commission of the Disarmament Conference is meeting to-day for the first time after an adjournment of some seven and a half months. I regret
that I am unable, as yet, to make any statement on the subject beyond what has been made up to the time of the last rising of the House.

Mr. MANDER: Do the British Government propose to make any statement of policy or to take any initiative there?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is covered by what I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).

Mr. V. ADAMS: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British Government's proposal to impose a general embargo upon the export of arms and munitions to the belligerents in the Gran Chaco dispute has fared; and whether, to sustain British integrity, he will independently withhold further licences for the export of armaments to Bolivia or to Paraguay?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have informed the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that they continue prepared to agree to prohibit the export of war material to Bolivia and Paraguay on the lines proposed by them and approved last year. The Governments of 20 other countries have also announced that they agree in principle to the proposal to impose this embargo. As regards the second part of this question, I am not aware that any licences have recently been granted, but the final action of His Majesty's Government must depend on the decision on the proposal of His Majesty's Government to be taken at the present meeting of the Council of the League.

Mr. ADAMS: While thanking the Prime Minister for his reply and venturing to congratulate the Government upon their splendid initiative, may I ask whether there are not certain conditions which would justify us in taking independent action to end this terrible traffic?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those considerations are actively in front of the mind of the Government at the moment. We wish something effective to be done.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Government are taking independent action?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of exactly the opposite.

Mr. MAINWARING: Do the nations referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's reply agree with prohibition in fact as well as in principle?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered the question which was put to me, and the words used are "in principle."

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take what steps lie in his power to see that armament firms do not offer the contending countries a loan with which to buy armaments for which a licence is asked; and that inducements are not given to those people to buy armaments with money which they have borrowed?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me the information on which he bases his question, as I am not aware of the facts which he assumes are well known.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Which are the countries which have not agreed in principle?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know of no countries that have not agreed in principle. I believe that invitations were sent to 32 countries and, as I have said, 20 have replied up to now. That does not mean that the others do not agree.

Mr. MANDER: Has not President Roosevelt said that he is prepared to take independent action?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOMBIA AND PERU.

Mr. MANDER: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present position with regard to the dispute between Colombia and Peru; and during what periods in the last three years hostilities have been taking place and diplomatic relations broken off?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to be able to announce that the formal signature took place on the 24th May of a protocol of friendship and cooperation between Colombia and Peru. This agreement is the result of the negotiations which have been proceeding at Rio de Janeiro between delegates from
these two countries in accordance with the terms of the agreement reached at Geneva on the 25th May, 1933. As regards the second part of this question, desultory hostilities took place in the region of the Putumayo and the Upper Amazon during the first months of 1933, following on the taking of Leticia by a band of Peruvian civilians in September, 1932. Diplomatic relations were broken off in February, 1933.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

UNITED STATES, JAPAN, RUSSIA AND GERMANY.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the steps taken to secure the admission of the United States and Russia into the League of Nations; whether any action has been proposed to secure the re-entry of Germany and Japan into the League; and whether any of these countries have submitted proposals for the reform of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: The entry into the League of Nations of the United States and of the Soviet Union depends entirely on the decision and initiative of those two States and is subject only to the provisions of the Covenant. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that neither Germany nor Japan has as yet actually withdrawn from the League of Nations; as far as Germany is concerned, the hon. Member will recollect that His Majesty's Government stated in their Memorandum on Disarmament of the 29th January last that her return to Geneva ought to be made an essential condition of agreement on a disarmament convention. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that initiative is permitted to States outside the League to make application to join the League, and is there not a responsibility upon those inside the League to give an intimation that such application would not be turned down?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member were aware of the differing circumstances which attend these movements
on the part of nations, he would know that there is no possibility of applying one rule to them.

Mr. ATTLEE: Would the Government be prepared to welcome the United States and the Soviet Union into the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that my right hon. Friend has assured the House of that time and time again.

PRISONERS (TREATMENT).

Mr. DOBBIE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the development of the practice of illtreating political prisoners in the prisons and detention camps of many countries, he will consider instructing the British delegation to the League of Nations to ask the League to lay down a code on this subject by which persons charged with political offences should be treated at least with the humanity prescribed for ordinary criminals and that the arrest or detention of such persons should be notified to the League, which shall appoint representatives in each country who shall be armed with a right to visit and obtain access to such persons?

The PRIME MINISTER: The International Prison Commission, on which this country is represented, drafted Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which were in a revised form submitted to a committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations in October last year. These rules are designed to include
all persons deprived of their liberty and put in prison for any reason whatever. The term 'prison' is used in the widest sense of the word.
It is further stated in the observations preceding the rules that
if the premises used for the provisional detention of persons arrested by the police are not included in this term in certain countries, the fundamental ideas underlying the rules must nevertheless be followed as far as possible.
There is in these rules no specific reference to persons charged with political offences, but Rule 5 requires that
other civil prisoners under order of the court in countries where such measures exist, should not be subjected to any greater restriction of liberty or severity than is required by the special nature of the detention, and to maintain order.
These rules have been circulated by the League of Nations to the States members of the League, asking for the comment and criticism of the respective Governments, and while this action is in process it would seem to be inadvisable to take such action as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anomaly that is going to arise very shortly, inasmuch as the International Penitentiary Congress is to meet in Berlin, of all places?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps it is rather a good thing.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Has there been any response from the countries which are members of the League of Nations indicating their observance of these rules?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put that question down, I will supply an answer.

Mr. MANDER: Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to the Oranienburg detention camp?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DURHAM (ORPHANS' PENSIONS).

Mr. DICKIE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in administering out-relief the public assistance committees in the county of Durham are regarding orphan's pensions as household income, while the commissioners for transitional payments allocate such pensions entirely to the child; and will he give the reason for this difference of treatment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The county council take into consideration both the needs and the pension of the child in assessing the needs of the household, and my right hon. Friend sees no objection to this course. He understands that the practice of the commissioners is different. The matter is within the discretion of the respective authorities.

Mr. DICKIE: Is it not a fact that the public assistance committees deliberately take pensions into account as being part of the household income, while
the commissioners are ignoring them and allotting the pension entirely to the child? Why should there be this differentiation?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We are in touch with the Ministry of Labour on this matter, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is made a condition for a Government grant for a rural water-supply scheme that the county council concerned should contribute?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is not an absolute condition, though exceptional circumstances will be required to justify a grant without a contribution from the county council.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If it is not an absolute condition, how can the Minister enforce it? The Act says nothing about it.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: What the Minister said was that it was only right that the county council should make a reasonable contribution, and the onus was on them of showing why they should not do so.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the county council does not think so, are the unfortunate local authorities not to get a water supply at all?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The question has only been raised by a county council in one case; in every other case the council has willingly made its fair contribution.

Mr. LEVY: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how many grants have been made so far?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 60.
asked the Minister of Health how many grants have been made in aid of rural water supply schemes as a result of the recent Act; and on what basis were such Government grants made?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Schemes for 23 parishes, estimated to cost over £100,000, have been approved for grant. The grant
in each case has been decided after considering the burden which would fall on the local ratepayers without a grant and the level of the local rates.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that, if 23 parishes cost £100,000, £1,000,000 will not go very far to supply all the needs, more particularly those of Lincolnshire?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (INTERNATIONALISATION).

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what schemes have recently been submitted to the Government from persons outside official circles with regard to the internationalisation of civil aviation; and whether they are being considered by the appropriate Department?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that two unofficial schemes bearing on this subject have recently been received; the answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S ACCESSION (TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY).

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a committee to make arrangements at home and in the Dominions for the celebration of the 25th anniversary of His Majesty's accession?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is at present under consideration, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Captain A. EVANS: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to state the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the debt payments due to the United States of America on the 15th June next?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject, but I hope to do so shortly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the proposal put before
him by the right hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme as to a method of paying the debt owed to America?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have considered the proposal submitted to me by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but the disadvantages of the scheme do not appear to me to be counterbalanced by any corresponding advantages.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of substituting an allowance of five-ninths of the standard rate of tax of 4s. 6d. in the £ on the first £175 of taxable income for the present allowance of one-half the standard rate and, alternatively, of restoring the allowance of five-ninths of the standard rate of 4s. 6d. in the £ on the first £250 of taxable income, which was in operation immediately prior to the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, in place of the present allowance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is estimated that the alterations suggested in the question would cost about £4,000,000 and £13,000,000 respectively.

Mr. WILMOT: Having regard to the comparatively small sums involved, will the right (hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making some concession to the poorest class of Income Taxpayers?

Mr. STOURTON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, whereas Schedule A assessments are fixed and unalterable for five years where there is no change in the rental, the Board of Inland Revenue in cases of void periods, although no change has taken place in the rental value, make a practice of calculating gross re-assessments on the lower rent obtained, with consequential reduction of repairs allowance, thus depriving a property owner of a portion of the repairs allowance fixed by quinquennial assessment; and whether he will take action to assure that in future the appropriate quinquennial repairs allowance is made in all cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the allowance for void periods, in the case of
houses let in apartments or tenements, granted by Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1930. If this is so, perhaps he will supply me with particulars of any case in which he considers that the relief granted is inequitable when I will have the matter inquired into and communicate with him further.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH HORSES AND CATTLE (IMPORT DUTIES).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to stop horse and cattle smuggling into Northern Ireland more effectively, he will consider recommending to the Ulster authorities the mobilisation of the B Special Constabulary who have had experience of this type of work before, and who would be quite capable of effectively checking the practices referred to?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to my information the measures already taken or in contemplation make it unnecessary at present to consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether recent information would indicate that the steps taken to prevent cattle smuggling from the Irish State into Northern Ireland are achieving their purpose?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed that the steps already taken, and the publication of the proposed legislation in the Finance Bill, are having a salutary effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLIVIA (LOANS).

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to state what loans have been contracted by Bolivia since 1926; whether he is aware that the loan of 9,088,200 dollars obtained by Dr. Hernando Siles, the then President of Bolivia, from Messrs. Vickers-Armstrong was obtained on the condition that it should be used for the purchase of war material in England; whether this loan has been refunded and, if so, when; and what amount of it was spent on the purchase of arms from this firm?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the available in-
formation as to the foreign loans contracted by Bolivia since 1926. So far as I am aware, it is not the case that President Siles obtained a loan from Messrs. Vickers-Armstrong; the remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Following is the information:

FOREIGN LOANS obtained by the Bolivian Government since 1926.

1927.—A loan of $14 million from Messrs. Dillon Read & Co.

1928.—A loan of $23 million from Messrs. Dillon Read & Co.

1929.—A loan of £180,000 from South American Mining Company in return for concession of Atocha Villazon Railway.

1930.—A loan of $2 million from Union Allumetière Company of Brussels in return for the concession of a match monopoly in Bolivia.

January, 1934.—A loan of 8,400,000 Swiss francs from the Swiss Banking Corporation to Central Bank of Bolivia.

March, 1934.—A loan of £500,000 by Patino Mining Company to Central Bank of Bolivia.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HOUSING COMMITTEE (INTERIM REPORT).

Miss CAZALET: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the interim report of the National Housing Committee; and whether he intends to take action based on their recommendations?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has received the report to which my hon. Friend refers, and it is at present receiving his careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ARLOSOVOFF CASE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what court or who are trying the accused in the Arlosovoff case; and how long a time has elapsed since the arrest of Akhi Meyr, Stavsky and Rosenblatt?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The accused in the Arlosovoff case are being tried by the Court of Criminal Assize sitting in Jerusalem. The trial opened on 24th April last. Stavsky, the first accused, was arrested on 19th June, 1933; Rosenblatt, the second accused, was arrested on 23rd July, 1933; and Ahimeir, the third accused, was arrested on 24th August, 1933. The third accused was acquitted on 16th May, 1934, but is being detained in custody on the charge of being a member of an unlawful association.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any appeal from this court?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

George Arthur Griffiths, esquire, for the County of York, West Riding (Hems-worth Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 47.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[3.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bernays, Robert
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bossom, A. C
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Boulton, W. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandaman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Clarke, Frank


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Burghley, Lord
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Conant, R. J. E.


Bennett, Capt, Sir Ernest Nathanlel
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Cook, Thomas A.


Cooke, Douglas
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rickards, George William


Craven-Ellis, William
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ropner, Colonel L.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Davison, Sir William Henry
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Runge, Norah Cecil


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kimball, Lawrence
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Devillie, Alfred
Knight, Holford
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dickie, John P.
Leckie, J. A.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salt, Edward W.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lees-Jones, John
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Drewe, Cedric
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Duckworth, George A. V.
Levy, Thomas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lewis, Oswald
Savery, Samuel Servington


Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.
Scone, Lord


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Selley, Harry R.


Dunglass, Lord
Liewellin, Major John J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Eimley, Viscount
Mabane, William
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-In-F.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McKie, John Hamilton
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Adam
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stones, James


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Goldie, Noel B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, Sir Richard James
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Graves, Marjorie
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kigswinford)


Grimston, R. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morgan, Robert H.
Tree, Ronald


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hales, Harold K.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wardlaw-Mile, Sir John S.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Munro, Patrick
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Harbord, Arthur
O'Connor, Terence James
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hartland, George A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Patrick, Colin M.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Petherick, M.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Powell. Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Purbrick, R.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Henderso, Sir Vivlan L. (Cheimsford)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hepworth, Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Womersley, Walter James


Holdsworth, Herbert
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsden, Sir Eugene



Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rankin, Robert
TELLERS TOR THE AYES.—


Horsbrugh, Florence
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sir Frederick Thomson and


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Captain Austin Hudson.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid. William Allan (Derby)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnses)


Banfield, John William
Harris, Sir Percy
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Dobble, William
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Pickering, Ernest H.



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Rea, Walter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
Mr. Groves and Mr. John.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Rothschild, James A. de



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORATION) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(a) to empower His Majesty to revoke the National Economy (Statutory Salaries) Order, 1931;
(b) to provide that while the said Order remains in force the abatement to be made thereunder from the salary to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of any office shall, from and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be reduced by one-half;
(c) that any Act of the present Session for giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this Resolution should contain all such other incidental and consequential provisions as may be necessary for giving effect to the purposes aforesaid."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

3.49 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I think that it will be within the recollection of the Committee that, in the course of the Financial Statement which I made on 17th April last, I announced the intention of His Majesty's Government partly to restore as from the 1st July certain abatements in allowances and salaries which were paid out of public funds. Those abatements were made in 1931 for the most part by administrative action and, in so far as that is the case, it is possible now to restore the abatements also by administrative action. But there were certain salaries which were fixed by Statute and in those cases it was not possible to employ administrative action and legislation was required to make the abatements. That legislation was effected by the National Economy Act of 1931 and in order to restore in part those abatements it is now necessary to introduce legislation amending that Act. The Resolution which I now move is necessary in order to enable that amending legislation to be introduced.
The Act of 1931 gave power to His Majesty by Order in Council to make Orders which took effect in an Order dated the 1st October, 1931, providing that:
Where the amount of the salary to be paid in respect of any office in His Majesty's Service is specified in any enactment there shall, as from the date when this Order takes effect, be made from that amount

(a) in the case of a salary of £5,000 a year or more, an abatement of 20 per cent.;
(b) in the case of the salary payable in respect of the office of Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, an abatement of 15 per cent., and in the case of any other salary of £2,000 a year or more, but less than £5,000 a year, an abatement of 10 per cent.;
(c) in the case of a salary of less than £2,000 a year (not being a salary in addition to which any bonus is paid), an abatement of such percentage, not more than 10, as the Treasury may determine;

Provided that in the case of a salary of less than £5,000 a year there shall be made such additional abatement, if any, as is necessary to reduce the salary to £4,000 a year.
In this Financial Resolution it will be seen that there are three separate paragraphs. The first paragraph states:
That it is expedient to empower His Majesty to revoke the National Economy (Statutory Salaries) Order, 1931.
That is going further than we are required to do in order to carry out the proposal which I announced on the 17th April, which was only to restore one-half of the cuts. This Resolution, if passed, will authorise a Bill which will give power to remove the second portion of the abatements at some future time if it is found possible and desirable to do so, without introducing any further Bill for that purpose.
The second paragraph is
to provide that while the said Order remains in force the abatement to be made thereunder from the salary to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of any office shall, from and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be reduced by one-half.
That paragraph refers only to those salaries which are fixed by Act of Parliament. In the case of Ministers of the Crown the only salary in question is that of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the reason for that is that he is the only Minister of the Crown whose salary is actually fixed by Act of Parliament. In the case of a large number of other appointments the salary is specified in the Act of Parliament to be not exceeding a certain sum, but in the
case of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the salary happens to be fixed at a definite sum. Therefore, that is the only Ministerial salary affected by the Resolution. The other cases have been dealt with by administrative action. In addition to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the Resolution applies to the Judiciary, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and a short list of other officers who are paid out of public funds.
There remains one further salary to be dealt with, and that is the salary of the Governor-General of Northern Ireland. In that case the salary is contributed to by the Government of Northern Ireland. Their contribution is made by way of deduction from the share of the revenue which they have retained. Therefore, we shall have to increase the contribution which they now make, so that the contribution will be one-fourth of the salary of the Governor-General.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to understand that we stand for one-fourth of the salary of the Governor of Northern Ireland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I said that the Government of Northern Ireland contribute one-fourth of the salary of the Governor.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Then three-fourths of the salary of the Governor of Northern Ireland is paid by this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Three-fourths is paid by the National Exchequer and one-fourth by the Government of Northern Ireland. That is in accordance with an old standing arrangement. The only other paragraph in the Financial Resolution is a consequential one which says that the Act must contain other incidental and consequential provisions which are necessary for its purposes. It will be seen that the Resolution is merely to implement the statement already in possession of the Committee. If there are any questions which hon. Members wish to ask I shall be very happy to answer them.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: While we are grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the information that he has given there are some points regarding which we are not clear. There is the
statement in the first paragraph that the intention is to revoke the National Economy (Statutory Salaries) Order, 1931. The paragraph then provides that the abatements henceforward shall be reduced by one-half. Are we to understand that when this Resolution has been agreed to and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought in his Bill in due course it will not be necessary to bring in another Motion or another Bill to restore in full the abatements to those to whom part is now being restored? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be in a position if he so desires to restore the remaining half of the abatements so that there will be no further question of abatements for consideration by the House? We should be glad to be informed on that point. The Chancellor may have made it clear, but the matter is new to us.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I point out that these salaries are only those which are fixed by Act of Parliament? The effect of passing this Resolution, and subsequently the Bill founded upon it, will be to give power to effect full restoration of these salaries in precisely the same way as those which can already be effected by administrative action.

Mr. GRENFELL: It will be open to any future Chancellor of the Exchequer, I suppose, to make a declaration that the abatements are to be restored in full, that he may do that quite independently of what he does in regard to the restoration of the other cuts approved by this House, and that the restoration is quite, independent of, and in no way connected with, the restoration of cuts to the Civil Service, His Majesty's Forces and so on. The House having already partially restored the cuts to men engaged in His Majesty's Services, I want to know whether any further restoration may be made without the necessity of any further Resolution, and that this is quite independent of any restoration of cuts in a general way which may be brought about in a subsequent Budget?
Is this to be the final attention which this House will be required to give to this matter? Will it be possible for a future Chancellor to make full restoration to those people whose salaries have been fixed by Statute without the necessity for this House to pass any Resolution to alter the abatement and they are
not to be contingent upon any financial situation to enable the Chancellor to deal in the same manner with the very much larger number of other people whose cuts have been only partially restored up to the present? This method, we understand, is necessary because these people do not come into the same category. It it true that they are employés of the State, but their salaries have been fixed in this way, including that of one Minister of the Crown who is in the happy position of a maximum or minimum salary, in good or bad times, fixed by law, whereas the Chancellor and the other unhappy occupants of the Front Bench have not that privilege. We understand that the Minister of Agriculture is to be dealt with under this procedure because he is, for this purpose, a salaried official of the Crown whose salary has been fixed by law. We are glad to know that he is to have his salary paid in full. He is working very hard, and if his efforts are from time to time misguided, it is not due to any lack of zeal on his part, and we are glad to know that he is not to suffer in salary even although his plans have not succeeded.
If we are allowed the opportunity to-day of discussing the larger question of the restoration of the cuts, we certainly would like the attention of the Committee given to the question of the incidence of the cuts which will remain after this Motion has been passed. We do not think that it is very urgent that the judges' salaries should be restored even to this extent while the low-paid civil servants do not have their cuts restored to them. There is the whole question of the incidence of the Economy Act, 1931, which perhaps we cannot debate on this occasion, but we are not very enthusiastically demanding that the salaries paid to judges should be restored; nor are we very anxious, in a general way, for those people whose salaries exceed £2,000 a year. The Chancellor has not said how many people are involved altogether in the special provision for the restoration of abatements which this Resolution, is designed to cover, and we would like to learn from him, if possible, the number of judges who are on the salaries' list, the number of judges whose salaries have been reduced by
reason of the abatements, the total amount of the restoration to be made to them by this proposal, and a number of other less important officials to whom the Chancellor referred in a general way.
Because we realise that this is not the opportunity which we would like to have of a general discussion on the Resolution, we can only ask these questions, and express our pleasure that the thing has been done in this way with the knowledge of the House. We did not know whether the abatements might have been made at the Chancellor's pleasure without requiring confirmation by this House, and the concessions having been required from the judiciary and the other class of men, it is only right that this House should be consulted before those abatements were altered to any extent. We do express apprehension that the step now taken only takes us half way towards the restoration of abatements, and we should like, if possible, before a further step is taken, that an opportunity should be given the House on a future occasion to confirm or to question the next step which has to be taken if the original position is to be restored.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on finding himself in a position to remove some of the economies made in 1931, and no one will begrudge His Majesty's Ministers the restoration of half of what they then lost. I have always thought that they were underpaid, and I think that even hon. and right hon. Members opposite will subscribe to the proposition that Ministers of the State, at any rate, ought to be adequately remunerated for their services, which they are not at the present moment. I gather that the Law Officers of the Crown are not included among the Ministers in this Resolution. If I am right in that, I think it is a matter which ought to be dealt with in some way. I do not know whether we shall want a Resolution of the House, but the present rate of remuneration of the Law Officers is absolutely scandalous.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point which can be discussed on this Resolution.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Then I merely leave it with the solemn affirmation that it is a matter which must be dealt with before very long. I am afraid that I should be transgressing the bounds of order if I said more than that. There is, however, one matter which arises definitely out of the remarks of my right hon. Friend, and that is the question of the restoration of the salaries of His Majesty's judges. I was horrified to heas how glibly he dragged in His Majesty's judges with other civil servants, and was equally horrified—without offence to my right hon. Friend—when I heard him sandwich the judiciary between the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the. Comptroller and Auditor-General. Many of us complained of this when the original Order was made, when the judges, with other civil servants, were treated holus bolus in this matter to this very ruthless and casual method of readjusting their salaries which are said to have been fixed by the Act of Settlement. By Resolution of the House this particular Government can give back to the judges £500 a year, just as in 1931 this particular Government took away from the judges £500 a year. Many of us think that it is not decent, that it exposes the judiciary to just that kind of fluctuation of remuneration at the hands of the Executive which the Act of Settlement was designed to eliminate. When the Act of Settlement expressly stated that judges' salaries were to be established, it was to avoid this kind of fluctuation of remuneration at the hands of the Executive owing to the fact that they were included in the Order of 1931, and although I did not subscribe to the view expressed on high legal authority that that was an unconstitutional Act—I do not think that that is a tenable proposition—nevertheless it does in spirit, at any rate, conflict with what was intended to be done when the Act of Settlement was passed.
The hon. Member who spoke last referred, I thought, in rather unfortunate terms to the rate of remuneration of His Majesty's judges which was being partially restored as a result of this Resolution. It is never a popular thing, in distressing times like the present, when one can always point out the parallel of a
man having 25s. a week, and so on, to say anything in defence of a salary of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, but that is not the correct aspect from which to approach this matter. His Majesty's judges, even if we pass this Resolution, will be receiving something like half the salary of a buyer for Woolworths and about one-sixth or one-seventh of the remuneration of the great leaders of the Bar at the present time. That is the scale we have to go by, and no Government ought to be content to leave the position of His Majesty's judges in such a state that it is not able to command in the prime of life the services of the very best leaders of the Bar.

The CHAIRMAN: That matter goes beyond this Resolution. I do not think that on this Resolution we can discuss the question of salaries generally. It is limited to the question of the restoration of abatements.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I bow to your Ruling, and will pursue the point no further than to say that the partial restoration that this Resolution will give to the judges does not, in the opinion of many of us bring them within range of what would be a reasonable remuneration for the services which they render.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question in regard to this Resolution. As I gather, the right hon. Gentleman wants power to deal with the whole of the cuts, not half, that is to say, that on the 18th July the restoration of one-half of the cuts will come into operation and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is also taking power to deal with the remaining half. Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the remaining half during the present financial year? If not, I am at a loss to understand why it should be considered necessary to get this further power unless full restoration is to take place during the present financial year. I can understand that it may be necessary to take action to anticipate blessings that are to come, but I cannot understand why this power should be required if it is only to be applied in the next financial year.

Mr. DAVID MASON: I desire to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). It will be very reassuring if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will state specifically whether it be the case that without coming to this House again he has full power to restore the full amount of the cuts made in 1931? It will be very reassuring if he can make a statement to that effect.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. COVE: In view of the general interest which is taken in this question, I should like to put one point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a general impression that we should be able to have a discussion on the restoration of the whole of the cuts, but that is not the case. I want to put one question, which I hope will be in order. Am I right in assuming that it will be possible to restore the other cuts of civil servants, teachers and other people, without any legislation of a particular kind; will it be possible for their cuts to be restored by administrative action on the part of responsible Ministers? I should like to have that point cleared up because of the great interest which has been aroused.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may briefly reply to the questions which have been put to me. The position, I think, is quite clear. All the cuts can be restored by administrative action except those which are dealt with by this Resolution, and the effect of taking power to restore the remaining half of the cuts by the Bill which will be founded on the Resolution is to put us in the same position with regard to them as we are in regard to other salaries. Therefore, it will be seen that there is nothing sinister or inconsistent in the action we are taking. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) said that he could not see why we required this full power unless we had some intention of making a further restoration during the present financial year. I have made my position in this matter absolutely clear. My position has been that the cuts in salaries form part of one whole, that whole being the measures which were considered necessary in order to deal with the
national crisis in 1931. That has always been my attitude and will remain my attitude, and if it should fall to me to deal with this matter in the future I should regard myself as absolutely precluded from making selections, picking out this or that section of those who were affected by the measures of 1931 for different treatment from that of the others. Therefore, I can say at once to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that there is no intention to restore the full cuts in the case of these particular salaries in the present financial year. They will have to wait their turn until full restoration can be made everywhere, when they will all come together. I speak for myself, I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). He wanted to know whether if he or one of his friends were Chancellor of the Exchequer in my place he would have the power to restore these salaries and yet keep back the other 5 per cent. from the teachers, police or Service forces.

Mr. GRENFELL: Or vice versa.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only say that he would have that power. With regard to the general question of the judiciary, I do not think it is desirable or indeed proper to enter upon that here, but, without expressing any view as to whether the judges are paid an adequate salary or not, I will merely say that I am glad it has been found possible now to make some further approach to the ideal of the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor).

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the case of the Law Officers of the Crown, who suffered the most severe cuts of all His Majesty's Ministers, is capable of administrative action?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. We shall propose to do exactly the same with the Law Officers of the Crown, who, of course, have to be consulted in the matter, as in other cases, that is to say, restore half the abatement made from their salary.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — COTTON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for enabling statutory effect to be given to rates of wages agreed between representative organisations in the cotton manufacturing industry and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such fees to members of any board appointed under the said Act and such expenses in connection with the proceedings of any such board as may be determined by the Minister of Labour with the consent of the Treasury.

COTTON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair,]

CLAUSE 1.—(Application for orders and proceedings thereon.)

4.24 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "if," to insert:
in any one or more of the areas specified in the Schedule.
I must apologise to the Committee that this and subsequent Amendments in my name do not appear on the Order Paper, but I have done my best in sending copies to the Chairman and Minister of Labour. If the Amendment be accepted the Clause will read as follows:
If in any one or more of the areas specified in the Schedule an organisation of employers in the cotton manufacturing industry … and an organisation of persons employed in the industry make to the Minister of Labour … in the prescribed manner a joint application.
The Bill is not clear in regard to one point, and the Amendments in my name have been put down in order to clear up the matter. They may provoke a certain amount of opposition from some quarters. I do not profess to be an expert in the cotton industry and I have put down my Amendments in order to obtain expert opinion and to make sure that the Bill
will carry out what it is designed to do. Under the Bill, if two organisations in the industry make an agreement, and certain conditions are complied with, it is to have the force of law. Sub-section (1) says that if organisations apply to the Minister of Labour he may in due course appoint a board to consider the matter. Under Clause 7, the interpretation clause, the cotton manufacturing industry means the industry manufacturing certain types of goods in the areas specified in the Schedule, and if one looks at the Schedule you find the areas to which the Bill applies. It is clear that any two organisations, the employers and the employed, may come to an agreement, and make an application to the Minister, which may ultimately affect all the owners and all the men in all the areas specified in the industry, but it is not clear that they may make individual agreements in the different areas concerned. I agree that it is advisable to have a national agreement between employers and employed extending to all classes covered by the Bill, but I can foresee the possibility, when the Bill becomes law and orders are made under it applying to all the areas in the Schedule, that the agreement may break down and the order have to be withdrawn. Any agreement may be considered better than nothing, and consequently this Amendment makes it possible for any two groups of masters and men in any one of the areas specified in the Schedule to make an agreement among themselves and for such an agreement to have the force of law in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I have to acknowledge at once the courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) in having sent me a copy of this Amendment. The answer to my hon. Friend is perfectly clear, and I think it should satisfy him on the points that he has raised. The Bill does not prevent rates of wages being fixed specially in one or more areas. That is perfectly clear. But the Bill does require that those rates of wages shall receive the sanction of organisations representing the whole industry. That is really the basis on which the Bill rests. If any local organisation could make application by itself—an application which did not necessarily receive the sanction of the organisa-
tion representing the whole industry, and that application were accepted, the Bill would be worse than useless, because we should be stabilising the very evil which the Bill is designed to prevent. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that reply.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Let me say at The very beginning of the Committee proceedings that we have supported this Bill up to now on the assumption that it was drafted with the consent of the employers' and workers' organisations. I think I can speak on behalf of the Labour party when I say that any Amendment which would upset that arrangement, made between the two organisations in the first place, and made between the two organisations and the Ministry in the second place, we shall be compelled to resist. In any case, if any Amendment is moved with the intention which I am afraid that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment had in his mind, namely, of taking these agreements out of the hands of the recognised trade unions and employers' organisations, we shall be bound to resist them and I agree with the Minister that it would make the Bill simply ridiculous if any Amendment of that kind were accepted.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I would like to assure the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) that that is not my intention at all. I merely wanted to make it clear that it is advisable, if a national agreement breaks down, to have regional agreements instead. I still think there is much to be said for that view, but in view of the hon. Member's remarks and those of my right hon. Friend the Minister as to the general feeling in the cotton industry, I do not propose to proceed with the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "majority of."

This Amendment should be read in conjunction with that which follows it on the Paper, in line 16, after "employers" to insert "controlling the majority of the looms." The purpose of these Amendments is to define the measure of the
majority as not a majority of the number of employers but of the productive capacity of the employers. I think it will be generally admitted that the proper measure of weight to be given to the votes of members of the industry should be according to the size of their productive capacity. Clearly it would be absurd for a tiny mill with a small number of looms to have the same voice, in determining whether or not the Government should give sanction to these wage agreements, as a huge combine which represented a great number of mills and a very large loom capacity. There are many precedents for basing the majority voice on productive capacity. I think that the Unemployment Insurance Act, for the purpose of determining the majority of employers' interests in special schemes, applies the test of the number of workers employed by any given firm. That is a similar test to a test of loom capacity. It is the most convenient one to be applied, by determining the productive capacity of a unit in the cotton trade. I think it will be generally agreed that it is much more desirable that the majority interests should be based on productive capacity than on mere counting of heads.

4.38 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think this Amendment clearly improves the Bill, and it is one to which both sides, employers and operatives, agree. The reason why they agree is precisely the reason put by my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment, namely, that the number of looms controlled is the measure of the employing capacity of an employer. What we desire is to determine a majority by the employing capacity of employers and not by the actual number of them.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Naturally, we all ought to bend to the decision of the employers and employed; but has the Minister considered this point: It does not always follow that the number of looms is a test of the amount of production. The number of coal mines in this country does not determine the amount of coal produced. It seems to me that it may occur on some occasions that there will be several mills working half time, and their total pro-
duction will not be as great as that of smaller mills working full time and overtime as well. Has that point escaped the Minister's attention?

4.40 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The point that has been made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) is one about which I think we need not have any fear. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent a small concern or a number of small concerns from having a disproportionate voice in the industry. If you were merely to assess the number of units you would be putting a clog on the progress of the amalgamations which are considered desirable in the industry. A number of units which were amalgamated would, because of their being assessed on unit capacity, have only one voice, whereas what you ought to have is an assessment on the amount of what in fact the industry could produce. I do not think the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton is one which he will consider desirable to press. This is a sensible method of assessing the weight of the industry and is a method which is in use in the industry. It is practicable and does not put any obstacle or bar on the progress reorganisation and amalgamation which is so necessary.

4.41 p.m.

Lord SCONE: With the objects of the Amendment I am in complete sympathy, but some of us feel that the Amendment is rather too vaguely expressed—a mere majority of the looms—and we would like to have a much more definite figure. That is why some of us put on the Paper an Amendment which has not had the good fortune to be called, suggesting that 75 per cent. of the employers and the employed would be a sound figure, that is to say, three out of every four of employers or interests controlled by employers should be in favour of such compulsion. A word of explanation is necessary as to why those of us who have no personal concern with the cotton industry and do not profess any intimate knowledge of it, should intervene in this Debate. The reason is that the principle raised by this Bill looks far beyond the cotton industry, important as that industry is. For tine first time we are having——

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is going beyond the scope of the Amend-
ment. It is true that there is on the Paper an Amendment in his name and that it was not called, but there is another Amendment on the Paper which may yet be called, and we cannot now discuss it on this Amendment.

Lord SCONE: I bow to your Ruling at once. I should be much obliged if the Minister would give us some idea of the figure which he would be prepared to accept before sanctioning a compulsory agreement which might be imperilled by the existence of a very considerable minority.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: If this Amendment be accepted, I am not clear how some of the Amendments which appear later on the Paper will stand. There is one in my name, in page 1, line 17, after "majority" to insert "comprising not less than eighty per centum of." It could be moved in a slightly modified form if necessary.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has no Amendment on the Paper to line 16.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But I have one to line 17.

The CHAIRMAN: We have not reached that point yet.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My attitude to this Amendment will depend on whether we shall be free later in some appropriate way to make sure that the majority is defined. Therefore, the present Amendment does concern us, because, if it be carried, automatically some of the later Amendments on the Paper can no longer be moved. We want to make sure that we shall have an opportunity of raising the question of what a majority should be.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The first Amendment on the Paper in his name refers to page 1, line 17, and it refers to different classes from those which we are now discussing.

Lord SCONE: I would like to know on what Amendment, if there be one, we shall be able to discuss the principle of majority rule in the industry.

The CHAIRMAN: That can arise on this Amendment, in so far as it refers
to the questions dealt with by this Amendment and a consequential Amendment referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), in line 16, after "employers," to insert "controlling the majority of the looms."

4.45 p.m.

Mr. WISE: Would it be in order to ask whether it is your intention, Sir Dennis, to call the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams)—in line 17, after "majority" to insert "comprising not less than eighty per centum of"—so that we may know whether there will be an opportunity of discussing the question of majority control as affecting not only the employers' side but the employed; or can that question legitimately be raised on the Amendment now before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: At the moment it is my intention to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) though, of course, I am not pledging myself to do so. What I drew the hon. Member's attention to a moment ago was that his Amendment does not refer to the particular class to which the Amendment now under discussion refers.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I think on reflection the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) will see that it would not be practicable to introduce any Amendment on the lines indicated by him, that is to say, to allow for looms which may be idle or on short time. We all hope that the cotton industry is going to improve, and it would be undesirable to put any handicap on looms which are not at the moment actually producing. The method of merely counting looms is a simple test which can be easily applied, whereas the number of looms idle or on short time at any given moment is a constantly changing factor, and would introduce into the test a certain measure of uncertainty. Further, I think that, on the whole, to allow for idle looms would make a very small difference, and would not affect the main purpose of my Amendment.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would have
better appreciated what I said regarding the Amendment. I never said that I objected to it. I said I agreed with it, but I thought the point which I raised was one which might have escaped the attention of the experts in the cotton industry—of whom I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman is one. Of course, I would support any Amendment of that kind which came from an authoritative source. At the same time, we shall oppose any wrecking Amendments which may come from unauthoritative quarters of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 16, after "employers" insert controlling the majority of the looms."—[Mr. Entwistle.]

4.50 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "majority," to insert
comprising not less than eighty per centum of.
I should say at the outset that I was under misapprehension when I intervened a moment ago. Having prepared these Amendments rather hurriedly in the one day which was available before the Whitsuntide Recess, I inadvertently omitted to include an Amendment on these lines, dealing with the employers in the industry. Under this Amendment I can only deal with the question of the majority of persons employed in the industry. However, this Amendment raises the principle, and I think, if it were carried, it would be administratively effective. During the Second Reading Debate some of us made it clear that we were apprehensive about this form of legislation, and the object of the Amendment is to ensure that statutory force shall not be given to an agreement under the Measure unless it is entered into on behalf of people who, between them, effectively represent the industry concerned. "A majority" might mean 51 per cent. The interpretation of the word "majority" for this purpose rests with the Minister, and while the present Minister might give an interpretation to which none of us could object, that would not necessarily bind his successors. I think therefore that Parliament ought to prescribe the extent to which there must be support for a proposal of this kind
before an order is made giving it statutory effect.
It is a matter of debate where the line should be drawn in deciding what size of a majority constitutes effective support. The Minister by simply using the word "majority" has drawn it at 51 per cent. as a minimum, though in his own mind he may have a much higher figure for administrative purposes. But I think Parliament ought not to let the Bill go without prescribing a definite percentage to ensure that any agreement brought into operation shall have behind it a solid body of opinion in the industry. I have suggested a figure of 80 per cent. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested 75 per cent. The difference between us is not very great, but it is clearly desirable that the majority should be a large, indeed, an almost overwhelming one. This matter is of great importance if this legislation is to be successful.
I do not know what view will be taken by hon. Members opposite, some of whom are concerned with trade union organisations. I do not know to what extent there are trade union organisations to-day which can claim with truth to represent 80 per cent. of the workers in their industries. It may be that in the cotton industry there are organisations to-day which can be said to represent 80 per cent. of the workers, but I do not know. I am aware, however, that in a great many industries in this country to-day the trade union organisations do not represent anything like 80 per cent. of the workers. The total number of people seeking a livelihood as employed persons to-day is about 19,000,000 and the number belonging to trade unions is less than 4,500,000, or only about 20 per cent. We know that the cotton industry is more highly organised, as the phrase goes, than many others and the trade unions may, as I say, represent 80 per cent. of the workers, but in any event some figure ought to be prescribed.
It may be urged that if we placed the figure as high as I propose and if for any reason there was a heavy leakage from the unions, it would be impossible for the Bill to operate. I am not seeking to introduce a wrecking Amendment in that sense. It might be the case that the organisations concerned would say, "While 80 per cent. of the operatives do not belong to our union, nevertheless, we have been able to obtain the support
of large numbers of those who do not belong to the union, and we are authorised in this respect to act on their behalf." That would overcome any difficulty which might be raised by hon. Members opposite who are connected with the trade union movement on the ground that 80 per cent. is too high. In any event, I urge strongly the desirability of not conferring these powers on any body of employers or workpeople unless we are assured that those who make an application, represent not a bare majority but an effective majority of the people concerned.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am sure the Committee will see at once that this Amendment is unworkable and impracticable. The Committee has already accepted the principle that, as regards the employing side, the test is to be a majority of looms and that majority may be only 51 per cent. The hon. Member now wants to make it a condition in the case of the workpeople that there shall be a majority of 80 per cent. of those concerned. That would be grossly unfair and would give an advantage to the employers. They can act on the basis of a bare majority, not of human beings but of machines——

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I have explained that I prepared these Amendments in a great hurry before we adjourned, and, through inadvertence, I did not put down two Amendments dealing with both sides.

Mr. DAVIES: But I hope that Parliament is not expected to accept the consequences of the hon. Member's inadvertence. That, in effect, is what he is asking us to do, but I think he will have to get up earlier in the morning if he wants to induce us to accept that position. The hon. Member asks that a trade union before it is allowed to take any action under this Measure must show that it represents 80 per cent. of the workpeople in the industry. The hon. Member knows that no young person under 16 can join a trade union. Suppose there are 100,000 workpeople and that 25,000 of them, as might well be the case, are under 16, it would be impossible in that event to get the 80 per cent. I am suspicious of the hon. 'Member's intentions in this connection,
but in any case on the ground that it is unfair to impose a condition on the employés' side which does not apply to the employers and also on the ground of the impracticability of the proposal, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

4.57 p.m.

Lord SCONE: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It has been explained that there has been an unfortunate mix-up in connection with these Amendments and that we have not been able to discuss the whole principle of majority rule in relation to this kind of legislation owing to the fact that the Amendments had to be put down hurriedly. What we are trying to show is that it will be dangerous if a substantial proportion of those engaged in an industry, whether employers or employed, are not in favour of an order made under this compulsory legislation. I hope it will not be out of order if I make a comparison with the Agricultural Marketing Act. Under that Act, there has to be a substantial majority of producers in favour of the initiation of a scheme. These Amendments have not been put down for the purpose of wrecking the Bill or making things awkward for the Government. They are designed to help. This legislation will very likely be followed by similar legislation affecting other industries, and we desire that it shall not be prejudiced by the introduction of schemes which may prove unsuccessful largely because a substantial proportion of those concerned have been forced into them against their will.
If the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment—and I agree that 80 per cent. may be too high a figure—I hope he will at least state what figure he, himself, has in mind. I hope he has some figure in mind. If we are to go on the assumption that a bare majority will be sufficient, grave apprehension will be caused not only in the cotton industry but in other industries which have a reasonable expectation that similar legislation affecting them will be introduced. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to state what principle he has in mind for deciding what is a satisfactory majority.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment,
because, if these words were inserted, the purpose of the Bill would be destroyed. I do not think there is a trade union in the country to-day which can claim to represent 80 per cent. of the workers employed in the industry with which it is connected. The best thing that can happen with regard to industrial relations in this country is that there should be organised bodies to conduct negotiations, and if you can get organisations representing the workers and the masters agreeing on certain conditions, and give the Minister power, if he be satisfied that they represent a majority in the industry, to make an Order accordingly, it will be a good thing. Until about two years ago the relations between employers and employés in the woollen and yarn textile industry were splendid, but we have to regret to-day that those relations are not quite as happy, and anything that we can do to bring about good relations between the two sides will, I am certain, help the industry a lot. I cannot understand the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who is usually so good at figures, putting in this figure of 80 per cent. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R Davies) drew his attention to the fact that the juveniles employed in the industry cannot be members of a trade union below a certain age.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Why not?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am rather surprised to learn that the hon. Member wants to draw them all into the trade unions, as it is rather against his principles. I trust the Minister will oppose this Amendment. I am prepared to leave it to his judgment to say whether parties who have appended their signatures to an agreement are representative of the industry or not. It is not a new principle at all, and I trust the Minister will resist the Amendment.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I am in substantial agreement with the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). I do not know how much latitude is allowed in discussing the general principle of the Amendment, but I put down two Amendments with a similar object, though not specifying the exact percentage. I believe it is inadvisable to give to the
Minister, and subsequently to the board, power to bring in an Order on a bare majority. Under Sub-section (4) of Clause 1 the board has to consider whether it is expedient, as well as being satisfied with regard to the majority, but I do not think that is a sufficient safeguard. May I suggest to the Minister that he should consider, between now and the Report stage, some words implying that employers or employed coming forward with an agreement to be sanctioned by the force of law should represent a substantial majority? I commend that suggestion to my right hon. Friend, if he does not see his way to accept this Amendment.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I am always surprised in this House to find how representatives of various parties align themselves on Amendments in Committee. We have here a staunch defence of the democratic system coming from the Tory benches, with violent opposition from those hon. Members opposite who continually profess to believe in democracy. I think the Committee should be grateful to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) for reminding them, after the speeches of the two hon. Members of the Opposition, as to what this Amendment is really about. We are not discussing ordinary agreements between employers and employed. This is a question of agreements which are to be given statutory force. It is a very novel departure and, in my submission, an extremely dangerous one, but, unlike the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), I am not a Fascist. I have no doubt his argument in favour of the establishment of a corporate state impressed the Committee very much, but on this side we still have a hankering for the retention of our old institutions and of a certain amount of freedom in bargaining between employers and employed.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am not certain that the hon. Member has read this first Clause. It is after the negotiating bodies have met and come to an agreement that the agreement is to be given statutory force. There is no intervention by the Minister until after agreement has been arrived at.

Mr. WISE: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but the de-
parture from principle is in giving such agreement statutory effect. In normal cases an agreement between two parties arrived at after negotiation is a thing which is possibly maintainable by the courts, but not by a special Statute which says that anybody committing an offence against it is liable to a penalty without the thing being taken into court. I still hold to my description of the hon. Member for South Bradford as a Black Shirt, and I am only surprised that his shirt at the moment is only partially striped, but no doubt grace will come to him in due course.
I was surprised again at the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), who, although he belongs also to a party some sections of which at the moment are clamant in favour of democracy, is endeavouring to maintain that principle by resisting this Amendment, which is applicable to a trade union, possibly representing a bare majority of the workers in an industry and probably not really representing those workers, because in general negotiations between trade unions and employers the opinions of individual members of the unions are not invariably consulted with that care with which they might be consulted. I think the Committee will agree that, although the appearance of the hon. Member is benevolent, the voice which thundered from inside was that of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), with another version of the corporate State, but this time with red shirts instead of black shirts. We only need, I think, an additional voice, possibly from supporters of a social credit scheme, to produce almost a national emblem of red, black and green. I hope the Committee will realise the necessity of proceeding with great care, and I hope the Minister will express some figure to define what majority is necessary for the enforcement of an agreement between employers and employed in this industry.
As those who are supporting the Amendment have said, we do not like the principle of this Bill, and we want to take care that what may be a bare principle is not made worse by lack of caution at the beginning. I do not think that 80 per cent. is an overwhelmingly high figure to require before any agreement is given statutory force, because
this figure is not going to debar employers and employed from coming to agreements as they have done in the past and as I hope they will continue to do in the future. The only reason for giving this statutory force is that unfortunately in the cotton industry in the past agreements have not always been kept as they should have been kept, and quarrels between employers and employers and between employed and employed have been far more prevalent probably than in any other industry, not excepting the coal industry. I think that is possibly because the cotton industry is mainly domiciled in Lancashire, and I have always felt that the county crest of Lancashire should be a mule. But even assuming all the obstinacy and prejudice that both sides have brought to bear in the discussion of working agreements, I think we should be better off without any statutory force being given to such agreements, and if we cannot have that, I think the figure of 80 per cent. is not too high to insert in the Bill.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I am supporting the Government in this matter, and I hope they will not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) are, I take it, against the principle of the Bill, and I can understand them putting forward wrecking Amendments, because this is a wrecking Amendment, as I will try to show. The hon. Member for South Croydon mentioned members of trade unions, in connection with this figure of 80 per cent., and if the Amendment were carried, I can say quite honestly that there would be very few agreements made at all. As everyone knows, trade unions from time to time occupy a very curious position. They come under a slump, as it were, and many of the people, in their disappointment, leave the unions. There are fluctuations even in the best trade unions from 65 to 70 per cent., and very seldom does it get to more than 80 per cent. It may be argued that if they do not represent the whole of the trade, they should not claim to be able to make any agreement at all, but if you follow that line of argument, it means smashing altogether the trade union idea. If hon. Members opposite believe in trade unions, they are going
a long way towards breaking them up by putting in 80 per cent. before an agreement can be given statutory force.
I hope hon. Members opposite will recognise what has happened in the cotton industry in the past, where certainly some employers have broken away from agreements arrived at, and consequently this House has recognised that something must be done, and the Minister has taken it upon himself to meet both parties, who have said to him, "We cannot go on as in the past, and we want your help." This is largely an agreement that they have made. I have been making inquiries this week-end, in my division of Leigh, of a certain number of cotton employers. I have tried to find out if they agreed with this Bill, and they have said that they do. They recognise that in the past many small employers have broken away and caused difficulties, and so if this Bill has a large measure of agreement, do not let us try to break it up by saying that a figure of 80 per cent., or even of 70 per cent., should be put in, because it would be very dangerous. As mentioned already, there is something now in the Bill, in Subsection (4) of Clause 1, which to my mind protects any attempt to overrule a big body of opinion. I wish hon. Members opposite would read Subsection (4). It states:
If the hoard is satisfied that the said organisitions were so representative as aforesaid the hoard shall inquire whether it is expedient that an order be made under this Act,
If they are satisfied about that, the Order is made. When going into this matter the board will first examine the employers' side and then the workmen's side to see if they are representative, and, if they find that they represent the big volume of opinion in the industry, surely it is all the protection necessary. I hope that those hon. Members who are not particularly interested in the cotton industry will recognise the broad principle governing the kind of agreement which we are trying to bring forward and will not be led away by the argument that, unless 80 per cent. of each side be agreeable, the agreement ought not to receive the assent of the House of Commons. We have to see that consent is given to what after all will make industrial relations better than they have been in the past.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I want to point out a misapprehension under which the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) and one or two other hon. Members are labouring, judging from the speeches that they have made. They talk as if, when an agreement is entered into between a majority of employers and a majority of employés in this industry, statutory effect were immediately given to it. That is not what Clause 1 says. It merely says that in the event of such an agreement there is an obligation on the Minister to set up a board in order to inquire into the application and report to him thereon. When the board is set up they have to consider, first of all, whether those making the application do in fact represent the majority of the employed and employers in the industry. After that, they have further to consider whether it is expedient that an Order be made. If they do so find, they make a recommendation to the Minister. Finally, under Clause 2, after such a recommendation has been made, the Minister may make an Order. Therefore, a good many stages intervene between the agreement, which merely gives a prima facie case for setting up a board of inquiry, and the Order. I am sure that the board, if it does its duty properly, will bear in mind the size of the majority as one of the essential elements before considering whether it is expedient to advise the Minister to make an Order.

5.18 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) and my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) have disclaimed any anxiety to wreck this Bill. It is clear that they dislike it, but they ask me none the less to accept the Amendment with a view to its improvement. Obviously, for reasons that have been stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), the Amendment, if accepted, would in fact ruin the Bill, and I am not prepared for a moment to consider it. The ostensible ground for supporting the Amendment which has been advanced by those who dislike the Bill is the fear that the rights of minorities are disregarded and not properly protected by the Bill. I believe that, if this Amendment were accepted, it would have precisely the
opposite result from that which they profess to wish to obtain.
May I support what my hon. and learned Friend has just said with regard to the infinite precautions which we have taken in this Bill to ensure that the rights of minorities are fully considered throughout the whole of these proceedings. In the first place, I do not set up the board at all if I have reason to believe that the organisations do not represent the majority. That is the first safeguard. Secondly, the board itself is required as its first duty to be satisfied that the organisations do represent the majority. That is the second safeguard. The third is that, if the board be not satisfied that the organisations represent the majority, they so report to the Minister, and no further proceedings are taken at all. We have taken every precaution, therefore, to ensure that these organisations do represent the majorities on both sides. So far as the employers are concerned, the fact is—and every hon. Member who sits for a Yorkshire or Lancashire constituency will bear me out—there are many who do not belong to an organisation but who are still none the less prepared to carry out the agreements that are made. What will be the effect, therefore, if we impose this merely arithmetical formula? It will have exactly the opposite result from that which is desired, and I cannot for a moment accept a proposal to take 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. or any other percentage.
The Bill makes full provision to enable minorities to express their objections, and clearly it is better that they should be able to express their opinion before the board. The board, sitting with assessors, will give full weight to what they say, and that is better than imposing this purely artificial, arithmetical formula and incorporating it in the terms of the Bill. The object of the board will be to determine whether the interests of the majority and of the industry as a whole outweigh the objections of the minority, and the one and only thing which they will consider is what is really in the interests of the industry as a whole. Those most concerned—in fact, those entirely concerned—namely, the employers and the employed in this industry, have come to the conclusion that this Bill as drafted is in the best interests of the industry as a whole. Indeed, they go further and say that the Bill is essential unless there is
to be chaos in the industry. They have come to this agreement, which I am putting into legislative form, and it is an arrangement from which, frankly, I am not prepared to depart without the consent and agreement of both sides. If I did, I should ruin the very object which I have in view.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has rejected the Amendment. In fact, I do not think that even the promoters of the Amendment would vote for it. I do not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates the anxiety which some of us feel. I am not with hon. Members who oppose the Bill in principle. I believe it is necessary, for I am convinced that in future industries must have power to organise themselves, and to have compulsory powers, and I am concerned to see, as far as is possible, that in this, which is the first and presumably the model of what I believe will follow in other industries, the best possible form is laid down. As it goes on errors will be discovered, but we want to get it as nearly perfect as we possibly can to start with. The reason that I am not satisfied with the Bill is twofold, land my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) can weave into my hosiery any colour he likes. The first is because I think the machinery as outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) and enforced by the Minister may tend to be a great deal too cumbrous. The second is that in the cotton industry—about which I admit I know little or nothing—as with many other industries some of us contend that the trade unions do not properly represent the employed and the employers' associations do not properly represent the employers.
I am concerned to see that the real good of the industry is taken into account in this matter, and I am not satisfied that this Bill does that. You may set up all the boards you like, and the Minister may say with perfect reason that the only people he can deal with are those banded together to present their case, namely, the organised bodies of employers and employed, I want to be sure, however, that it will be possible to take the view of the industry for the benefit of the
industry apart from the question of majorities or minorities. The minority is often as right as the majority. I want to see some machinery by which the real good of the industry is considered and not necessarily the view held by the majority organisations. I am not happy that the Bill does that. This Amendment will not do it, and I hope the Minister will consider whether there is any way by which he can simplify the procedure, possibly by seeing that other interests get a chance of expressing themselves and by making sure that the real opinion of the industry is obtained and not merely the opinion of an organised clique.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: There is undoubtedly a considerable number of Members who are anxious least we should do anything in the Bill which will give the right to a bare majority to over-rule a substantial minority. I think that their apprehensions are unjustified and founded on a misconception of the scope and purpose of the Bill. The Bill does not introduce a new system for industry throughout the country. It is an experimental Bill to endeavour to help the cotton trade. One of the problems of the cotton trade for many years has been the difficulty of carrying out agreements arrived at between representative organisations, and the sole purpose of the Bill is to make those agreements properly arrived at after due consideration obligatory on the trade. What should be borne in mind in examining the Bill is its parochial character and its experimental nature.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. Member will not refer too much to the Bill instead of to the particular Amendment.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I accept your Ruling. I was intending to point out that in the Amendment an effort has been made to drag in the whole question of majority rule, whereas it should be examined from the point of view of whether or not it does something to destroy the object and purpose of the Bill. In the cotton trade a very large proportion, or at least a notable proportion, of the employers are not necessarily representative of any particular organisation. If we were to introduce a particular numerical assessment of the number of people to be classified as a majority we should run this great danger,
that so many of either the employers or of the employed might be sitting on the fence, as it were, that we should be imposing not a bare majority rule on the industry but, in fact, minority rule. It is because the cotton industry has suffered so long from an obscurantism which has resulted in the imposition of minority rule that this Bill has been brought forward. I trust that those hon. Members, with whom one has every sympathy, who dislike the idea of a bare majority overruling a substantial minority will appreciate that in this case the effect is much more limited.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I realise, as I remarked when I moved the Amendment, that there would be difficulties in its standing by itself, but I ask the Minister to consider whether he should not, on Report stage, insert before the word "majority" the word "substantial," in order to show that it is the intention that a bare majority is not to prevail. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) suggested that Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 provided some additional protection in this matter, but it does nothing of the kind. Sub-section (4) states:
If the board is satisfied that the said organisation were so representative,
that is to say, of a majority, and it still leaves it a bare majority. Personally, I do not think that is quite good enough.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: The hon. Member says that I said something which the Bill does not say. I merely said this, that once the board are satisfied that the organisations do represent a majority, they then have to inquire whether it is expedient that an Order shall be made, and I said that in considering whether it is expedient they will certainly take into consideration the size of the majority.

Mr. WILLIAMS: They may do, but there is no instruction that they shall do. The difficulty is that a bare majority will obviously be the organised body. The minority, particularly of the workpeople, is obviously not organised at all, and the views of that minority may never come to the board. In view of the circumstances which exist I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I hope that between now and Report stage the Min-
ister will consider the possibility of inserting the word "substantial."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "agreement" and insert "application."

This Amendment attempts to remove a possible ambiguity which might arise concerning the assessment of majorities. As a specific instance, it is possible that organisations representative of employers and of employed enter into an agreement, and that at the period at which the agreement is entered into they are such majorities that nobody thinks fit to apply for a legal ratification of its terms. But it may be that in the course of years, through some event or other, one of the sections which has signed that agreement sustains a loss of membership, and, feeling its influence weakening, it applies for legal sanction to put the terms of the agreement into effect. It is obviously undesirable that a section which no longer commands a majority of the workers in that section should be allowed to apply for legal sanction to put the agreement into effect. Therefore, the Movers of the Amendment feel that it would be more just to require that the majority should exist at the date of the application rather than at the date of the agreement.

5.35 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am prepared to accept this Amendment, for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Mover.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the first
majority of.
With your permission, Sir Dennis, I think this Amendment ought to be considered in conjunction with the next Amendment—In page 2, line 13, after
employers," insert
controlling the majority of the looms,
because they deal with the same point. In Sub-section (1) the Minister has to decide whether a sufficient case has been made out by the organisations representing the majorities on the two sides before he sets up a board. In this Sub-section the board is to report, after inquiry, on the question of fact whether the organisations do represent such majorities, but
the principle is the same, and I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 13, after "employers," insert:
controlling the majority of the looms."—[Mr. Entwistle.]

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out from "report" to the end of the Clause.
As I said on Second Reading, it seems to me that this Bill is so hedged round with safeguards that its application will be somewhat delayed, and this Amendment would remove one of what I call the unnecessary safeguards. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the necessity for unanimity in coming to a decision. I regard that as a sort of super safeguard. Is there any precedent for requiring unanimity in the report of a committee? One of the criticisms against the League of Nations is that unanimity is required in its decisions. I cannot help thinking that the ordinary rule of representative institutions, namely, that the majority should rule, is a wise one. Further, in this case it is not a question of ruling, but simply a case of making certain recommendations and bringing certain facts to the attention of the Minister, who is then free to act. The board may be constituted of an unlimited number of persons, it may be two or three or a dozen, and it would seem unreasonable that one person out of a dozen or even out of six should be able to prevent the facts being brought before the Minister. The board has two duties to perform—to find out whether an application is representative, and then whether it is expedient that it should be granted, and I submit that the board should be unhampered and allowed to function in the ordinary way that committees do, submitting its recommendations, whether they be unanimous or only have the support of a majority.

5.40 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Previous criticisms have suggested that the Bill goes too far, but the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) seems to think it does not go far enough. As I have said before, the Bill in its present form has been agreed upon by both the
parties concerned in its operations. They are entirely satisfied with it, and it is quite certain that if one extended the scope of its operations—and that would be the effect of this Amendment—in the way proposed we should be adopting a course which would commend itself to neither party. The effect of the Amendment would be to take away from the board all its duties except merely the duty of considering whether the organisations are or are not representative of majorities.

Mr. MANDER: I did not move the first Amendment. It is the second Amendment which I moved, the one which removes the necessity for unanimity.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I beg pardon, it was my fault. I thought the hon. Member was moving his first Amendment. As he says, the second Amendment deals with the question of unanimity. That, again, is a safeguard which we have deliberately inserted, and to which both sides have agreed. For the reasons I have given before I am not prepared to accept any Amendment, certainly no Amendment of substance, unless I am satisfied that both sides want it. I am satisfied that neither side desires this Amendment, and, therefore, I am not prepared to accept it. I think that what is here required is a necessary and proper safeguard in a Measure which, as has been pointed out, is of an experimental character. We should run the risk of making a serious mistake, indeed, unless we had this safeguard in a Bill of this sort.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I never thought the day would come when I should find myself associated with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in disagreement with His Majesty's Government and with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but I really am not happy about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot imagine that either side of the industry could object to allowing a report to go up to the Ministry if there were only one dissentient voice. If this Bill is to be the forerunner of many others, and is to introduce a new system into the cotton industry, the more information the Minister has the better. If I understand the hon. Member's Amendment aright, it does
not propose that the Minister must take action, it is merely a case of laying information before him, and I feel that the more the Minister knows about matters the better. While I do not suppose the hon. Member will press his Amendment, if the Minister insists on refusing it, I hope the Minister will consider between now and Report stage whether he is not stultifying himself in refusing to let himself be furnished with information which might be of value to him.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will explain to me exactly what he is talking about. The Amendment is to leave out the last two and a-half lines of Clause 1.

Mr. BEAUMONT: That was the Amendment to which I was endeavouring, possibly inadequately, to address myself. As I understand it, the Amendment proposes to delete the words in the Clause which state that no recommendations shall come before the Minister unless they are unanimous. I was suggesting that such recommendations might be of extreme service to the Minister in understanding how these agreements between two sides of the industry which were applying for statutory powers were working and showing him the conclusions reached by these investigators. I am sorry if my remarks did not explain that point clearly. I feel that such recommendations, for the consideration of the Minister only, may well be of value and cannot possibly be objected to by either side, and I think it is a pity that the board will not be allowed to state their conclusions unless they are unanimous.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: If the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will turn to Clause 5 he will find that the board is composed of only three persons, the chairman and two other members. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted, I imagine that one member might recommend that an order be issued and the other that the order be not issued, and the situation would therefore be impossible. If the board consisted of about 12 persons, or of 47 nations like the League of Nations, there would be some sense in a majority ruling, but when there are only two persons and a chairman the proposal is reduced to absurdity. If the
Amendment were accepted, both employers and employed would say that Parliament was not keeping faith with them, and they would not make any application to the board. There would be then a continuance of the squabble that has been going on for years.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Making of orders.)

5.48 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from "persons," to "will," in line 35, and to insert "who."
I wish to draw attention to the fact that this Amendment goes with the next Amendment upon the Order Paper—in line 43, to leave out "classes of." It turns on the meaning of the word "class." It is the intention of the Bill, I take it, that the word "class" should be understood in the way in which it is used in Clause 1, and that it should refer to the whole of the weavers and not to applications by a particular group of particular weavers. As an example, the Jacquard weavers in a particular district might wish to make application for an order, but it would be highly undesirable that "class "should be taken as having that meaning. The Amendment is, therefore, intended to ensure that it has the meaning which it has in Clause 1, and is applied to the whole of the weavers of the industry. The whole of the weavers in that class of weavers throughout the industry should apply before the application be granted.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman appears to remove some ambiguities in regard to the meaning of the word "class," and we propose to accept it.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: One of the difficulties about this matter is undue rigidity. I can see certain cases arising where new methods of production have been introduced and are operating in certain mills, and where it may be very desirable, in dealing with workpeople pro-
ducing a certain kind of article by different methods, that entirely differing piece rates should be fixed. I am not quite certain, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me, whether, if we leave out the words "class or classes," which definitely imply that there may be varying wage rates to meet different systems of working, we may not rule that out, and in that case what we are doing, instead of clarifying the situation, may be quite reactionary. I am not quite clear as to the meaning, and I hope that the proposer of the Amendment and his numerous supporters will explain a little more clearly what kind of effect is intended.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Perhaps I can explain. In Clause 1 the word "class" is used to apply to weavers as a whole, but in Clause 2 it is used to apply only to a section of weavers. By removing the words in question, the ambiguity is removed from the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 43, leave out "classes of."—[Mr. Entwistle.]

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to add:
(3) Any Order made under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
(4) Any such Order as aforesaid shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made, unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
(5) In reckoning' any such period of twenty-eight days a* aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
This Amendment is in slightly different form from that which appears on the Order Paper—
(3) Any Order made under this Section shall cease to have effect unless at some time before the end of that period it has been approved by resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament.
The phrasing of the Amendment I am moving is taken from the Import Duties Act, and the drafting is all right. It has been amended only to the extent neces-
sary for this Bill, which represents a big change, as was frankly recognised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies). If we are to make a big change, and if we are to confer upon the Minister the power which has been so frequently conferred upon Ministers, and which is judicial in a sense, we ought to confirm the various recommendations which have been made from time to time in regard to the discretion of the Minister, when he is acting in a way which is half judicial and half legislative. This House or Parliament as a whole should retain control over the legislative duties. We have provided in the Import Duties Act that there shall be an affirmative Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament because it deals solely with finance. In this Amendment I propose that there should be a Resolution of both Houses, because it is not a matter dealing with finance in the ordinary sense.
These Orders will be of very great importance, but, in a constitutionally governed country the last word should be with Parliament, whatever the importance of the Orders may be. I have not the slightest doubt that any Order made will be a sensible Order, and it is much more likely to be a sensible one if all concerned know that the last word lies here or in another place. Appropriate words should be placed in the Bill to provide for Parliament retaining the ultimate authority. I have worded the Amendment so that an Order can be annulled if the Resolution is not passed. The nearest analogy that we have on the Statute Book to what we have in this Bill is in the Trade Boards Act, 1918, which continues as an amendment to the original Act passed in 1909. Under Section 2 (4) of the 1909 Act, we find:
Every special Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next subsequent 40 days on which that House has sat after the Order has been so laid, praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice-to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the power of making a fresh Order.
Those are the two ways in which Parliament may retain control over a Minister. The method of affirmative Resolution gives to both Houses definitely more power than the form adopted in the Trade
Boards Act, in which one has to make a prayer, which is taken at 11 o'clock at night, when it is very difficult to keep a House, although the matter may raise big issues of debate. It takes place late and does not get the publicity which is accorded to the Debates which take place in the earlier hours of the Sitting. The Amendment places the obligation on the Minister to put a Motion on the Paper and to move that Motion, and the Motion has to be carried. That is a very much stronger form of control.
I have not concealed the fact that I do not like this Bill, but I do not think that any of the supporters of it could reasonably argue against the proposal which I am making. None of us know what form the first Order will take. The industry is passing through such difficult times and some of the circumstances are changing with such rapidity that Orders may have to be made frequently. When an Order is made, it may not last a long time, because it may very well be the case that a short time after the Order is made an amending Order will be necessary with great rapidity, and it will not be right to shackle the industry. I do not know whether I shall get more support for this proposal than I have obtained so far, but I believe in Parliamentary institutions. I am not in sympathy with the dictatorship which in one form or another is flourishing so much to-day, and which gets rather more support from the Liberal party than I should have expected. I hope that I may have support from them. That party always professes its democracy, but it does not always live up to it. When we delegate certain legislative powers to a Minister, he should only legislate under the ultimate control of this House.

6 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I should like briefly to support this Amendment. I believe that what we have here to decide is not something that is merely concerned with this Bill, but the whole principle. I can imagine some people saying that there are so many safeguards that the Amendment is not necessary for the present Bill, but I desire to deal with the matter on broader lines. In my opinion one of the dangers with which we are faced in this country is the extension of powers given to Ministers, and, seeing that we are here making a
statutory provision in a somewhat new fashion, I think that the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is a perfectly good one. I hope he will be satisfied that, in supporting the Amendment, his friends on the Liberal benches are upholding what we have always said ought to be done.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I sincerely trust that the Minister will not accept this Amendment. One of the virtues of the Bill is that it merely gives statutory sanction for the industry to control itself, and, if there is one thing of which I should have thought members of the party to which I belong would be in favour, it is the minimum of interference with an industry consistent with the industry's own welfare. It is obvious that, when these wage agreements which have been entered into between organisations of employers and employés are broken, it is bad for the industry as a whole, and, as in many other matters, it is necessary to put sanctions and compulsion on recalcitrant minorities who are acting against the interests of the industry as a whole. Surely it would be very undesirable if, before any of these wage agreements—which, after all, are very detailed in character—could come into force——

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I just correct my hon. and learned Friend? My Amendment does not stop the agreements coming into force; they can come into force forthwith. The only thing is that they would not continue in force unless within 28 Parliamentary days an affirmative Resolution were passed.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: If they come into effect but do not continue beyond 28 days unless there is an affirmative Resolution, they will be subject to all the exigencies of Parliamentary time, and to all the political influences which, as we know, operate in the House of Commons. In any event, we do not want Parliamentary control over the internal affairs of the industry. The whole purpose of the Bill is that sanction will only be given if a large majority of those in the industry are in favour of these agreements as being in their interest. I think that the less Parliamentary interference there is the better.

6.4 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I confess I was surprised that this Amendment was moved at all. In any case I have no hesitation in saying that no Amendment which has been moved this afternoon is more repugnant to the object and purpose of the Bill than this one. One of the main objects of the Bill is to enable those in the industry to come to their own agreements by themselves, and to make such bargains between themselves as they think are most satisfactory in the circumstances. To bring Parliament into a discussion as to whether the agreements are good agreements or bad agreements, or whether they should be altered or criticised, is utterly repugnant to the whole purpose of the Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The object of the Bill is not to enforce agreements as between the parties who made them, but to enforce agreements on people who are not parties to them. The courts of law are open to those who have signed agreements, but I am dealing with the case of people who were not parties to the agreement.

Sir H. BETTERTON: We have already had a discussion on the protection of minorities. I am now pointing out that, where the industry itself comes to certain agreements with regard to rates of wages, that, in our view, is a matter for the industry itself, and not a matter for Parliament. The main object of the Bill is to relieve Ministers and to relieve Parliament of the responsibility of reviewing the details of these agreements in the cotton manufacturing industry, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall be no party to giving any sort of sanction to the idea that these are suitable matters to be brought before the House of Commons for discussion or rejection or approval. That idea is so utterly repugnant to the whole object and purpose of the Bill that I cannot for one moment accept the Amendment.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am very pleased indeed that the Minister has once again put a Member of his party in the place to which he belongs, and I was a little astonished that the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) should have been caught in the meshes of the proposal of the hon.
Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). The hon. Member for South Croydon always wants to compare this Bill with a trade board, and he has quoted the Trade Boards Act in support of his Amendment. We know, of course, that he is moving all these Amendments to-day with the deliberate intention of killing the Bill, and the Minister knows it also. He claims that the Bill is the beginning of a new conception of industrial relationships in this country and of the intervention of Parliament in' those relationships. It must not be forgotten, however, that trade boards were established in this country to deal with sweated industries. The textile industry of Lancashire is not yet a sweated industry, and that is a fundamental difference——

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I understand the hon. Member to say that he does not regard the Trade Boards Act as in any sense an analogy to this Bill?

Mr. DAVIES: No. I do not see the connection between this Bill and trade boards. The operations of the textile industry differ fundamentally from those in, say, the laundry industry. Trade boards were established in this country, in the main, because there was no trade union organisation in the industries concerned. That cannot be said of the cotton industry of Lancashire, because trade unionism is very strong there. The hon. Member wants to bring before Parliament all these agreements relating to wages governed by an Order. I am not conversant with all the details of the Lancashire cotton industry, but I understand that some wage agreements affect the wages of the employés to such an extent that they are calculated to recurring decimals, and I am not so sure that every Member of Parliament is conversant with recurring decimals. What, therefore, is the use of bringing these wage agreements before hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for South Croydon? I agree with the Minister that this method of giving legal sanction to wage agreements does not warrant all the paraphernalia mentioned by the hon. Member in his Amendment.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. WISE: To-day we have seen the astonishing phenomenon of a National Government, composed of a largely Tory
majority, demanding the right to legislate without Parliament—a thing which I do not think any of us expected. When I heard the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) make his contribution to the Debate, I was extremely pleased, because it seemed to me that one brand had been snatched from the burning; but the bonfire has now been augmented by two tons of coal and a couple of gallons of petrol, and I expect at any moment to see the rods and the axe brought in to escort the Minister out of the Chamber when he has disposed of the Bill. I suggest to the Committee that there can be no objection to these Orders being submitted to the verdict of the House of Commons; and, in spite of the opinion of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) with regard to our mathematics, surely there are some at least among our 615 Members who, with the aid of a table of logarithms, could work out the figures of wage agreements as between one set of employés and another. The hon. Member, I think, is prone to attach too much of his own difficulties to the rest of the House. I am sure that at any moment my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) would be prepared to give him a lesson in arithmetic, without charge, in the Smoking Boom.
All that this Amendment seeks to do is to prevent arbitrary legislation from going through without the consent of the House of Commons. It may be that the present Minister, whose duty it would be to make these Orders, is a person who can be trusted with the art of single-handed legislation in this country, and I think that most of us would be prepared so to trust him; but it should not escape the Committee that the power may be transferred some day from his moderate and capable hands into hands which are less moderate and less capable, and the House may deeply regret before very long its abdication of these powers to such an extent as was not done even in the case of the Import Duties Act. In spite of what the hon. Member for Westhoughton says about the flood of Orders which would be brought before the House, I think the Committee will agree that he overstated the case. There will not in fact be very many such Orders. The procedure, before an Order can appear on the Table of the House at all, is sufficiently exact; and, when those Orders
are going to have the force of law, and we hear a Member of His Majesty's Government arguing that the House of Commons should have no say in the making of such Orders, it is difficult for the Committee to understand whether they are sitting in this Chamber at the present moment or in Olympia in about a fortnight's time—[HON. MEMBEBS: "Where?"]—at the mass meeting of the Blackshirts.
Some of us—including the hon. Member for South Bradford now, although he did not earlier in the afternoon—still believe in Parliamentary Government, and, therefore, we would ask the Government if they cannot reconsider their rather violent rejection of this Amendment. After all, it asks for very little. It asks for the preservation of some of the privileges of the House of Commons, the maintenance of which has before now been the motive for civil war. Their continued arbitrary dismissal may result in a determined effort to regain Parliamentary Government once more, because not all the battalions are on the side of those who are now attacking our Parliamentary institutions, and I think that even the fact that the "Daily Mail" approves of the right hon. Gentleman's action at the moment will not be sufficient to preserve the House from the general contempt which it will earn if it abrogates its proper functions.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The arguments of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) can be disposed of by a simple examination of the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is concerned with the making of an Order with respect to any agreement, made between the organisations concerned, as to rates of wages, and rates of wages only. The fixing of wages in the cotton trade is a difficult and technical business. The Amendment invites the House of Commons to interfere and it is, in my view, an invitation which should be rejected.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I think that the arguments against my Amendment have no weight whatever either from the Minister or from the last speaker. I am not suggesting that Parliament is to attempt to fix wages. All I am suggesting is that the proposal embodied in the Order should be laid on the Table, that we should know of it and should have our
attention drawn to it and if there is something in it that is going to be prejudicial, before it is brought permanently into effect the House will be in a position, not to amend it, but to say Yes or No. It is to me incredible that this power should be conferred upon the Ministry or upon the majority in the industry. The Minister says he does not want Parliament to interfere with these agreements. We are not talking about the agreements but about people who are disagreeing with the agreements, and that is the vital thing underlying the whole principle. If the organised bodies make an agreement, they have only to attach to it certain penalty clauses and they can enforce it one against the other, but these agreements by Statute are to apply to people who did not sign them. What is the use of saying that Parliament is going to interfere with agreements? Where Parliament is going to interfere is among people who were never parties to the agreement.
The Minister's argument has no relation whatever to the point that I was putting. I regret that he did not address himself to the other point. I proposed the strongest form of Parliamentary control, but I also indicated the possibility of the less strong form, which enables us to pray against the confirmation of the Order, and that is the form which is in operation in respect of all these wage-fixing agreements. They are made as the result of an inquiry by a board set up by the Ministry. They are full of recurring decimals. I do not know why the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) thinks that there is any particular difficulty about recurring decimals, but, as I once took a degree in mathematics, I am prepared to give him instruction. Here is a real challenge to Parliamentary institutions. There is no getting away from the fact. You do not solve the problem by saying we are merely confirming agreements. If you are confirming agreements which are binding on all those concerned, the argument is valid. A Bill was brought in to confirm an agreement between the White Star and the Cunard, but there were no people outside that agreement whom we were coercing. Here we are dealing with an agreement made between the majority of employers and the majority of workpeople which is to he enforced against a minority
of employers and a minority of workpeople, and I say that Parliament ought to have a final say. We are not interfering between agreements in the industry. We are interfering, where necessary, between a minority of persons who were never in the negotiations and never signed the agreement in order to give them, if necessary, protection against the consequences of the agreement made by the majority. We ought to have much more valid arguments before the House of Commons declares that it is going to enforce compulsory action against people without reference to them at all in a way that is entirely novel, as far as I am aware, in our legislation.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I think that my hon. Friend is not quite accurate in his assumption that Orders made by my right hon. Friend dealing with rates of wages under the Trade Boards Act have to be laid before the House. They are issued in his discretion, and come into force forthwith.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I read the Section out and it definitely says that they have to be laid.

Mr. HUDSON,: Section 2 does not apply to Orders dealing with rates of wages. They may be brought into effect without confirmation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: A little lower down it says a special Order may be prayed against and, if it is successfully prayed against, it is delayed for 40 days.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Effect of Orders.)

Amendments made: In page 3, line 7, leave out "of a class," and insert "who is":

In line 14, leave out "of a class," and insert "who is".—[Mr. Entwistle.]

6.22 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, at the end, to insert "in each case."
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that on each occasion when an employer is found to have employed an employé at a wage less than that men-
tioned in the Order, he shall be liable to the fine mentioned in the Clause. The words of the Clause may mean that already but, if it means that an employer may employ all his weavers, say, at a wage less than that mentioned in the Order and get away with one fine of £10, the whole scheme will tend to break down. Already, under agreements which have been entered into in Lancashire, reductions have been made upon the wages agreed upon by certain employers amounting to between £30 and £100 a week. If such a state of affairs as that were allowed to continue with one fine of £10, obviously the employer would continue to do it.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I can assure the hon. Member that the Amendment is unnnecessary, because the meaning of the Bill is that the fine can be imposed in respect of each case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 3, line 21, leave out "of a class," and insert "who are."—[Mr. Entwistle.]

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out the word "agreement," and to insert "Order."
I am not sure that "Order" ought not to be substituted for "agreement" in the two preceding paragraphs as well as in this one. I did not put such an Amendment down, because I rather thought that in those paragraphs the agreement was referred to as something that had happened in the past, but I think it should be corrected in paragraph (c), as by that time the agreement has, in fact, become on Order.

6.26 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am prepared to accept the Amendment in principle, but I am not quite sure that it is in the right form. If it is not, I will have inserted in another place an Amendment which will attain my hon. Friend's object.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "setting out," and to insert:
containing a copy of the Order together with a schedule of.
The object of this Amendment is merely to ensure that an employer, when he
sticks up a notice setting out the rate of wages, is to set out at the same time a notice giving a copy of the Order under which the rate of wages is made.

6.28 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Again I am prepared to accept the principle of this Amendment, but I am not quite satisfied that the form in which it is moved is the best. I will accept it now and, if necessary, bring forward an Amendment in another place which will best carry out the object.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The Committee is at some little disadvantage in considering a manuscript Amendment which it has not seen. It may be that, as the result of this Amendment, wages agreements which apply to a limited number of individuals and firms may by force of law be imposed on the whole of a very large industry, a large proportion of which may or may not be interested in the agreement. I hope that, before the matter is finally dealt with, that point of view may be considered.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I can assure my hon. Friend that this does not alter the situation in the least. It is exactly the same as it was before. It is the duty of every employer who employs persons of the class affected by the rate of wages to put up a notice, and my Amendment is to say that he has to put up a copy of the Order as well as a notice setting out the wages.

Amendment agreed to.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the end, to add:
(d) It shall be a defence against any proceedings under this sub-section if the employer proves that as a consequence of the alteration of methods of production he has adopted piece rates of payment lower than those prescribed in the order but which result, on the average, in higher weekly earnings than those earned under the provisions of the order when the previous methods of production were in operation.
This Amendment, if carried, would remove most of my objections to the Bill because, as I have said, both on the Second Reading and on one or two occasions this afternoon, I am afraid that
we are going to prevent independent manufacturing people from making progress, and make it difficult for new methods of production to be introduced, and it is obvious that if this industry is to save itself, drastic new methods will have to be adopted. It does not follow that everybody will move in the same direction. There may be experiments of one kind or another, and if a manufacturer adopts entirely new methods of production which carry with them lower piece rates but which, nevertheless, enable the workpeople to earn higher wages, it will be a very desirable state of affairs, but if this Bill becomes law such a procedure in a great many cases will be impossible. In the agreement there will be piece rates, which, I presume, will be based on yardage under present methods of production. If entirely new methods were adopted which enabled men to produce a much greater yardage in the industry, naturally piece rates would be reduced, the selling price would be reduced, the industry would be helped but the workpeople would get better wages. I want to make that state of affairs a legitimate defence against proceedings under this Bill if it becomes an Act. It may be said that the employer who wants to do that has his remedy. I do not see what remedy he has under the Bill. No individual employer can make application under the provisions of Clause 1. He might conceivably make representations to the organisation representing the majority of employers that they should consider his proposal and that they, after consulting the majority of the workpeople, should put forward the proposal which he had worked out; but that seems a very unprogressive way to reform a great industry.
We all know that reform in industry comes about because a progressively minded employer decides to inaugurate new methods. If he is successful, in due course the others follow his example. I want that freedom to be left to employers in the cotton industry. I am satisfied at the moment that if somebody discovers an entirely new method which has not been proved out, the majority of the employers in the industry will resist the proposal if they fear that it will force them to adopt new methods about which they are doubtful and necessitate new capital expenditure which they do not
think will be justified. Therefore, such an employer would never be able to get the majority of his employers to support his case, and still less, in all probability, will he get a majority of workpeople to support his case. Therefore, the chance of the individual employer introducing entirely novel methods of the kind which may represent ultimately the salvation of the cotton industry is going to be ruled out, unless we introduce into the Bill a degree of elasticity which it does not possess at the present time. The words of my Amendment make out a case for themselves. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the proposal. If he does not like the existing drafting of the Amendment, I do not mind in the least how much he alters it as long as he preserves the principle that the progressive man who is doing things which are likely to save the industry shall not be punished for his enterprise. If he cannot consider it now, I hope that he will do so before the Bill appears in another place.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has tried every method known to his Parliamentary experience to torpedo this Bill, and this is another of his attempts to do so. I feel sure that I can convince the hon. Gentleman of one thing at any rate, namely, that if his Amendment were carried every employer could come to court and prove his case against carrying out my agreement. What do the words say?
It shall be a defence against any proceedings under this Sub-section if the employer proves that as a consequence of the alteration of methods of production he has adopted piece rates of payment lower than those prescribed in the order but which result, on the average, in higher weekly earnings than those earned under the provisions of the order when the previous methods of production were in operation.
Where the hon. Gentleman goes wrong all the time—and he raised this point on the Second Reading of the Bill—is to presume that, when an employer alters his method of production and makes more profit for himself thereby, automatically the wages of the workmen are raised. As a matter of fact, that does not follow.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If it does not follow, the argument does not arise. It is only when higher earnings arise that it has a difference.

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman really is talking as if the cotton industry were a tool-making industry. He is very conversant with the engineering industry, but I do not think that he understands the Lancashire cotton industry quite as well. Let me analyse his proposals. Every recalcitrant employer who now declines to carry out agreements without the passing of this Bill would succeed every time in a court of law. Who is going to inquire whether his claim is good or not? He will have to go to a court of law and perhaps have to appear before a magistrate knowing nothing about the industry. When an employer pleads his case and says to the magistrate, "I can prove to you this and that," what happens? The magistrate must be an expert in the mechanics of the textile industry before he can decide whether an employer has made out a case or not. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. All the magistrates of this country are not quite as intelligent as he thinks he is. That is the thing which we have to remember all the time. The hon. Gentleman has tried to get the Committee to accept an Amendment to allow black-legging among workpeople under the Bill, and now he is championing the case of the blacklegs among the employers. This is a black-legging Amendment for employers of the cotton industry, and I hope that the Minister will get up once again, as he has on several occasions, and put the hon. Member for South Croydon in the place that he deserves and make him look as small as I think he is.

6.40 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I rise only to add a few words with reference to the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) visualises the possibility, and indeed the certainty, of improvements from time to time taking place in production. These are matters to be dealt with and considered in making the agreement, and if the method of production so changes or improves that a new agreement is necessary or desirable, no doubt the parties concerned will make such new agreement. I am altogether opposed to inserting in the Bill an Amendment of this kind which, I think, would be repugnant to the whole object of this Bill, the main object of which is to enable the parties themselves
to come to their own agreements. They can change their agreements if they like, but let them come to agreements and, having come to them, let us do what we can to help them.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Let us assume that an individual cotton manufacturer believes that the adoption of a certain type of machinery will enable him to produce much more economically. He decides to do this, and possibly has to spend a great deal of money on new plant. He gets a larger output per employé, and in order to reduce his selling prices he will want to reduce his piece rates under a method of production which was not contemplated when the agreement was made. He alone undertakes this enterprise at the beginning. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what he is going to do, and how he is going to get freedom to adjust piece rates under the Bill as it stands, unless you give him some freedom to act as an individual.

Mr. LAWSON: What about the coal trade?

Mr. WILLIAMS: At the moment we are discussing a particular Bill and not what is carried out in the coal trade. I am trying to eliminate from the Bill the undesirable features without prejudicing the Bill as a whole. The Bill provides that there shall be a certain scheme of wages which is to operate until altered by an Order. I want to know what an individual manufacturer is to do who decides to make a complete change in his methods of production but who is compelled to work under a wage scheme designed for another system of production? Let me give an analogy from the engineering industry. The cost of motor cars has been enormously reduced for many reasons, but one is because of the system of assembly whereby various parts travel on moving bands, with people standing on each side performing certain operations as the parts travel slowly past them. That system of assembly has brought about an enormous reduction in the cost of motor cars. The cost under that system, with certain piece rates in operation in the assembly of the engine of a motor car, is obviously much lower than where the thing is done by hand in one of the firms making the more expensive luxury cars. Who would suggest that you should make an Order for the motor car
industry providing that the piece rate charge for fitting the end of a cylinder should be identical, irrespective of the methods of production adopted. I want to know from the Minister what the individual employer is to do in this particular case.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The points raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) are theoretical points, and they ought to be applied to a practical Bill. There is no analogy, as far as I can see, between the engineering trade and the cotton trade, and if, in fact, improvements in machinery and so forth were of such a character as to justify a new wage rate being introduced, then employers would ask for a new agreement. Then, by the operation of this Bill an application by the employers would automatically do away with the application of the statutory control, and in that way it would be possible for any large measure of improvement to be brought into the industry.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: How is the individual employer who wants to make an experiment to be permitted to do so?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The practical answer is, that all these matters will be brought into consideration when the employers and the employed are making their agreement. The hon. Member must imagine that the employers in the cotton trade have no idea how to conduct their wage agreements. This point will be brought very carefully before the committee of employers and employed who are considering whether or not they should give some loophole in the agreement itself for operations of this character.

6.47 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: In the case about which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) speaks, if those improvements were made there would be such an enormous rise in the wages of the operatives that neither the employers in the other mills nor the trade union workers in adjoining factories would be pleased. At once they would come to an agreement, or for the workmen on new classes of machinery there would be a different wage rate agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Revocation of Orders.)

6.49 p.m.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after "revoked," to insert:
either wholly or in nespect of any provision specified in the request.
As the Clause stands, an Order must be unaltered and unamended until it is revoked. It can only be dealt with as a whole, and not in part. When it is revoked it remains so until further application has been made, and this may necessitate a further inquiry, which may range over the whole field of the agreement. Such an inquiry is bound to take considerable time. Meanwhile, what is happening? There is no legally enforceable wage agreement in operation during that period covering any of the workers concerned, although the amendment which was required possibly only dealt with the rates of a small group of the whole body. We can quite easily imagine a position where the rates as a whole are satisfactory and the rates of a particular branch of the weaving trade are found to be unsatisfactory. Surely, it is not intended that the whole provision should be hampered by a position such as that. Under the Amendment it would be possible to revoke a particular provision or part of a provision while at the same time all the other provisions would remain operative. We who are supporting the Amendment think that it would make for more elasticity in the Bill and make it more workable, while at the same time it would not weaken the safeguards contained in the Bill.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: For the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend, we will accept the Amendment.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The Minister today has accepted a number of Amendments moved by hon. Members for Lancashire constituencies. I want to be sure that not only the employers' side wish these Amendments to be inserted, but that the workpeople also desire them.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: in page 3, line 40, after "revoked," insert:
either wholly or in respect of the provision specified in the request.

In line 43, after "order," insert:
either wholly or to the extent so specified as aforesaid."—[Mr. Entwistle.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Constitution of, and proceedings with respect to, boards.)

6.54 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out "in the opinion," and to insert, "within the knowledge."
I must apologise for these manuscript Amendments. The fact is that they were ready five minutes after the House had risen for the Whitsuntide Recess, but, owing to the arrangements in regard to printing, they do not appear on the Order Paper.
In this Sub-section it is provided that the board shall consist of a chairman and two other members and no person who is, in the opinion of the Minister, connected with the industry shall be a member of the board. Whether a man is or is not connected with the cotton industry is not a question of opinion, but a question of fact. Therefore, I suggest the acceptance of my Amendment.

6.55 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member gave me notice of this manuscript Amendment. As the Bill stands, it is left within the discretion of the Minister to say what amounts to a connection with the industry, or not. The Subsection says:
no person who is, in the opinion of the Minister, connected with the industry shall be a member of any such board.
If the Amendment were accepted, the phrase in the Bill "connected with the industry" would become a matter of legal interpretation and we should have to go to the court to decide what interpretation should be placed upon those words. The Minister would have to go to court and give evidence as to what was or was not within his own knowledge. That is a position which the Minister cannot contemplate. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. PETHERICK: I do not wish to press the Amendment, although I am not quite satisfied with my right hon. Friend's explanation. Surely, whether a man is or is not connected with the industry is a question of fact and not of opinion. Either he is connected with the industry or he is not. However, it is a small point, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move in page 5, line 7, to leave out "made on such an application," and to insert "under Section 4 of this Act."
The expression, "made on such an application" is intended, I understand, to refer to the word "joint." In that case it is not quite correct, because an application for revocation is not necessarily joint. It may be made by one or the other side. If hon. Members will refer to Clause 4 they will see that that is the case. Either of the organisations may make an application for revocation, and then the Minister shall take steps to revoke the Order. It seems to me that the expression, "made on such an application," is either incorrect in this Subsection or redundant.

6.57 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. It is clear from Sub-section (5) that a copy of the report of a board appointed to consider a joint application for the making of an Order shall be sent to both organisations. The effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment, if it were accepted, would be that the words "the application" in line 9, would only refer to the word "application" in line 5 and not to that word and also to the word "application" in line 7, with regard to revocation. The Amendment, which is extremely technical, shows the inconvenience of asking the Committee to deal with manuscript Amendments on so technical a matter as this, of which no Member of the Committee except myself and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has the slightest idea what
it is about. I hope the Committee will take my word for it that the Amendment is one which I cannot recommend.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6 (Administrative provisions), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Interpretation.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purposes of this Act all weavers employed in the industry shall be deemed to form a single class, and other classes shall be determined in like manner by reference to the several occupations of the persons employed.
This Amendment is of a drafting character, but is nevertheless important. It is essential that the definition of a "class" should be perfectly clear. As the words stand in Clause 1, it is arguable that the class referred to there might be covered by a local association which makes a district agreement with regard to wages. Furthermore, one section of a class, such as, for example, weavers might be deemed to be a class for the purposes of Clause 1. If one thing is clear, it is that the Bill does not mean to sanction agreements unless they are of a national character. They must apply to the industry as a whole. This subsection defining the word "class" is therefore necessary to make that point perfectly clear.

Mr. HUDSON: I agree with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment that this definition is an improvement, and we are prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 (Short title and duration of Sections 1 and 2) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule (Areas in which Cotton Manufacturing Industry is carried on) agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

PALESTINE LOAN BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.4 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
As the House had a very long day on this subject the other Friday and discussed all the details of the Money Resolution and the White Paper, I think that it will wish to satisfy itself on this occasion of one thing only: that the Bill carries out the intentions of the White Paper. I can give hon. Members that assurance. Clause 1 is the authority for giving the loan; Clause 2 lays down the conditions on which the Treasury have to be satisfied before the loan is issued and the Treasury guarantee is given. The House will see that in Clause 2 (2) the two conditions are laid down to which I particularly referred last time this matter was before the House, namely that fair conditions of labour are to be observed in the execution of the work, and that all plant, machinery and materials are to be ordered in the United Kingdom.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I did not have the advantage of listening to the Debate when the Money Resolution was before the House the other Friday, but I have taken the opportunity of reading the speeches which were delivered on that occasion, and I think, if I may say so without offence, that there was some spirited temper shown in some quarters that day. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity of answering the criticisms made then by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I do not think that he will be able to leave it exactly at that point, for, unless I am mistaken, that was the most vigorous criticism that has been made of any Money Resolution in this House for some time past.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It was effectively dealt with by the then Leader of the Labour party, who, on behalf of his party, disassociated himself entirely from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. DAVIES: The Labour party is of the same opinion to-night, except perhaps that the words we shall utter will be a little more delicately assembled together. I wish, however, to say a word or two on what I regard as a very important Measure. I had the privilege, along with some other hon. Members of this House, of visiting Palestine some months ago, and I wish that all hon. Members could see exactly what is happening in that little country, so wonderful in many respects. We must always remember, in dealing with Palestine, either with this loan or any other subject, what the British Government of any particular colour has to do in Palestine under the Mandate. This country has indeed undertaken a very difficult task. I am certain that whoever is at the head of the Department now represented by the right hon. Gentleman will always find it rather difficult to balance the claims of the two elements, the Arabs and Jews, in that country. I made some inquiry on my travels through Palestine into the problems which confront the Government there, and without associating myself too vigorously either with the right hon. Gentleman or the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I will gladly pay a tribute to the work of the High Commissioner and his staff in Palestine. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself were the High Commissioner in Palestine, I am not sure that he would be able to do very much better. He is a very well-informed gentleman; I wish that I knew half as much about the world as he does. I cannot, however agree with him in his criticism of the way in which Palestine is governed. Moreover, the Government of this country through its representatives in the Holy Land must walk very warily as between the Jews and the Arabs, and keep on an even keel as it were. Having said that, however, I am not quite able to understand this loan, because it does not actually belong to our responsibilities under the Mandate. It seems to me that we could have carried out the Mandate without this loan at all. I know of course the necessity for a water supply in Jerusalem——

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I only interrupt because the hon. Gentleman said that he was not present when the House discussed this loan. I then explained to
the House that his own Government had undertaken not only to guarantee this loan but also to give a grant-in-aid in addition to the guarantee, and I also explained that owing to the altered financial circumstances the grant had become unnecessary, but that it was reasonable that we should attach perfectly safe financial conditions to the guarantee.

Mr. DAVIES: If the right hon. Gentleman had remained patient a little I should have come to that. He is always a little too jumpy for a Debate on Palestine, and he must not forget that hon. Members of the Labour party and of the Tory party too criticise on occasions the Governments of which they were once members. I hope that I shall live long enough to see the right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House—that will be very soon, I hope. When he is on this side later on he will probably stand up and criticise the very proposals which he is now fathering. He will be a very unusual Member of Parliament if he does not do so. I do not think that this loan, in spite of the commitments of a previous Government, is of itself part of our Mandate responsibilities towards Palestine. That Palestine is a very flourishing country we are all delighted to know, and the first requirement of Palestine is indeed an adequate water supply. Nevertheless, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I have read the whole of the previous Debate, and it seems to me that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme failed to notice this point which I am now about to put. If these water supply undertakings are to be carried out in Jerusalem and in Haifa, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether they are to be municipal or private enterprise?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think both will be under Government control, though I should like to verify that in the case of Haifa.

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman is now championing State Socialism as against municipal Socialism; it is indeed a delight to see how far the Tory party has approached to our point of view, though I do not suppose that they would do that here at home.

Mr. CROSSLEY: It is the promised land.

Mr. DAVIES: And a land of promise. Having reached that point, that this money is to be spent under Government control for the purposes of a water supply-in Jerusalem and Haifa, may I ask another question? Who is going to have control of this item, the construction of an oil-berth and the land reclamation scheme at Haifa?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Haifa Harbour Board.

Mr. DAVIES: Now we are coming back to capitalism.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, it belongs to the Government of Palestine.

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman did not follow me. Who will lend the money to the Government of Palestine and the Haifa Water Board? I am sure that the money will be put up by capitalists.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope that the trade union funds will find their way into such sound investments.

Mr. DAVIES: I should not think that the trade unions of Great Britain would wish to invest their money in Palestine. The Jewish trade unions are very powerful in Palestine. I wish at this stage to pay this tribute to the Labour movement in Palestine, that, as far as I know, they own co-operatively the whole transport system of Palestine minus the railways. On this point I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who spoke about trade union conditions there, whether he will inquire a little more closely into the disabilities of trade unions in Palestine. I am not speaking of trade union disabilities in connection with these schemes now under discussion, but I understand that there are peculiar difficulties in the way of trade union work in Palestine that are unknown to us here. There was one sentence in the remarkable and critical speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which I disliked immensely. He was dealing with the educational problem and, being well informed, he told the House that he objected to the Koran and Talmud being the only text books in Palestine. On
that principle I suppose that he would object to the teaching of Welsh in Wales.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Precisely.

Mr. DAVIES: On that point we definitely part company. There is, however, a consideration in regard to education in Palestine which is important. The Jews are making great progress in the teaching of Hebrew—in my view every nationality has the right to teach its own language—but the important point appears to be that members of small nationalities, before they can find a livelihood outside their own country, must learn the English language too. That is why I learnt the English language. There was another remark in the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member which amazed me, to which I think the Secretary of State should reply. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Palestine Government does not want this money. Is that so?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, and I said that there was not one iota of truth in it.

Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry to have to put questions to the Secretary of State in a somewhat triangular fashion, but this is the only way in which we can get any information at all from the Government. Then we are told that this loan is only to be guaranteed. I have known such guarantees as this come home to roost. There is the case of the Austrian loan, in which we guaranteed the whole and any loss arising from it. Before we pass this Bill I think we should have some assurance that there is a possibility of the money being safe. Personally, I think it is as safe in Palestine as it would be in Newcastle-under-Lyme; and that is saying a great deal. Then there is the question of the resettlement of displaced Arabs. When I was in Palestine I was told that there was a wrong impression in Great Britain as to the sufferings of the Arab population—I do not know how far it is true—and that some of the land which was bought by Jewish immigrants was not bought from poor Arabs, as we have been told, but from rich Arab landlords, at a good price, Arab landlords who own land in Palestine and live in Syria. The right hon. and gallant Member for
Newcastle-under-Lyme is a keen advocate of the taxation of land values, and I have the impression that he is critical of this loan because increases in the value of land in Palestine are not finding their way to the proper quarter. There is a great deal to be said about that, and I think that much of the trouble in Palestine has arisen because of the fictitious prices which have been paid for land.
But in regard to the resettlement of displaced Arabs, where are they going to be put, in what part of Palestine? The argument I heard was that the Jews were able to buy the best land and that the Arabs, as a consequence, were thrown back on poor soil. There is no doubt that Palestine is a wonderful country if you can get engineers to provide water supplies there. Almost anything will grow there provided you get water in abundance. It is worth while asking also whether these Arabs are going to be resettled in communities, as has been done in those most wonderful colonies established by the Jews. In connection with public buildings there is an item of £407,000, including an expenditure on the Jerusalem Post Office. In this country our private banks and financiers do not loan money to support Post Office undertakings, and I am wondering whether it is not possible for the Post Office in Palestine to sustain itself and expand its buildings without a loan from this country.
I want to see this glorious little country, with its wonderful historical associations, peopled very much quicker than it is now, and I can see no reason why the restrictions which now prevail against Jewish immigration should be so strict. Palestine is as large a country as Wales, not quite so beautiful maybe. There is a population of 3,000,000 in the Principality and I should not be surprised if Palestine could not maintain from 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 people easily. The Jewish people are cultivating the soil in a remarkable way and are transforming patches of desert into a beautiful garden, and, therefore, I think that we should remove some of the restrictions against the further immigration of the Jews into that country.
I cannot leave this subject without making one slight protest. Some of us
represent distressed areas, and the reflection constantly arises as to how easy it is to get money for foreign parts when we cannot get any at all for our own districts. New bridges are wanted in many parts of this land, and something should be done to find work for our people in that connection. This is the kind of problem which brings a conflict into the human mind when in this House we pass millions upon millions of pounds, in one case for the people of Austria because they are in a terrible financial condition, and now a loan to Palestine to help people some of whom are at any rate very much better off than our own folk. There is in my mind a definite conflict on occasion as to whether we are right in supporting so readily loans for purposes abroad when we could do with the money at home. I hope that the Government will inquire into its own responsibilities at home and balance the pros and cons as to where money should be spent. If the banks and financiers of this country have so much money to spare let them come to the aid of our own people. They seem very ready to lend money to people abroad. I should be the last person to say that we should not lend money abroad. Finally, I wish the Palestine Government well, I wish the people of Palestine well, and I hope that the British Government, no matter what may be its political colour, will always bear in mind the conflict between Arabs and Jews and steer clear of any trouble on that score, Palestine is not only a promised land; it is indeed a land of promise.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. LOFTUS: I am as anxious as any hon. Member for the development of Palestine, a country to which we owe so many obligations and which has such sacred memories for us all. But I confess that I view this loan with a great deal of misgiving, and especially I fear its effects on the future prosperity of Palestine itself. Palestine is a small country and it has been importing capital at a very high rate. During the last 10 years Palestine one way and another has imported at least £25,000,000 of capital. It is now proposed to issue this loan. That process at the moment is all right; it means the importation into Palestine
of wealth. But that process cannot go on indefinitely and in a few years time the import of capital, money pouring into Palestine, will stop, and then Palestine, like all debtor countries, will be faced with a crisis. She may have to find as much as £1,000,000 a year in payment of the interest on the amount of capital imported, and when that happens she will suddenly have to find a favourable balance of trade of this amount—an excess of exports over imports. This will mean that Palestine will have to sell her products in the markets of the world at any price. World prices are generally forced down by debtor countries having to sell their products in order to meet the interest on loans when no fresh loans are obtainable to pay the interest on the old loans. That is what I fear in Palestine in the future—the inflow of capital probably stopping quite suddenly and the necessity of Palestine, a poor country, finding an immense favourable balance of trade, £1,000,000 a year, in order to pay the interest. I do not think she can do it, and there may be great suffering caused to the country not in the remote future but in the course of a few years time.
The result of this loan on our own trade at the moment will be good. It means that directly or indirectly goods and services to the value of £2,000,000 will leave this country, but the effect will not be so good in the future. It means that while the loan endures, that is for nearly two generations, Palestine will have to send us directly or indirectly goods to the value of nearly £80,000 every year in payment, and these goods will come here without any corresponding exports of our own goods in payment. The Colonial Secretary pointed out that Palestine this year has a budget surplus of £1,500,000 to £2,000,000. Last year, as far as my memory goes, she had a budget surplus of £500,000, a sufficient surplus in hand to provide for all this expenditure without the risks and dangers of a loan. The Colonial Secretary suggested that it was advisable that the Colonies should have a reserve fund equal to a year's expenditure. That may be desirable. It would be very desirable in this country, but I submit that it is a counsel of perfection. The Colonial Secretary suggested that it was right for a business to raise fresh capital
by loan even though it had ample cash resources for its purposes, but I would point out that the greatest business in the world was built by a single man, Mr. Henry Ford. He never raised capital for that gigantic business by way of loan, but put the profits back into the business. He never raised loans nor issued any fresh capital. In a country like Palestine, having a surplus of £1,500,000 on this year's Budget, using this available surplus would be a much more healthy form of development than following the old road, the constant borrowing of capital and ultimately having to face the inevitable crisis which that must cause. For these reasons, I feel anxious about the effect of this loan. As Palestine has a Budget surplus sufficient for these needs, if we are to raise any capital loans it would appear that might be better used to help in the development of our own country, especially in the improvement of the backward areas.

7.32 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) will agree that the question whether the borrowing of money leads to employment in a crisis depends on how that money is employed and whether it is invested productively.

Mr. LOFTUS: I do not agree. I suggest that even money invested productively in the Argentine railways caused a crisis when fresh loans from this country ceased to pay the interest on former loans.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The investment in the Argentine was pretty good for our trade while it lasted. The economics of the hon. Member are just a little shaky. If we send £2,000,000 worth of capital from this country it is only £80,000 that we get back in interest. That £80,000 comes to us in the shape of those excellent oranges which we want. When it is all repaid there will be no more oranges, but meantime let us have the oranges. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary in his opening statement said that the Debate on the Money Resolution ended in unanimity. My recollection is that it ended in mere vulgar abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), who has deserted me and cast me off, said that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secre-
tary did not reply to me. That is quite wrong. The right hon. Gentleman replied like a machine gun—"Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish!" He was so contentious that I counted up to 65 and then I left him. But I always think that "rubbish" is a reply faute de mieux. If the right hon. Gentleman still thinks that my objection to the Bill was rubbish I shall have to make it a little clearer than I did on that occasion. It must have been a lack of clarity on my part.
My objection to the Bill, of course, is multifold. In the first place, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, I cannot see that the money is really wanted in Palestine. When it has a surplus of £1,500,000 no other colony will borrow money. The right hon. Gentleman invents the delicious idea that every one of the Colonies under his Government is to have in hand, as a reserve, one year's revenue. Does he not wish he could get it? I do not think there is one other Colony in the whole Empire which has got that ideal reserve. I am certain that the people of Palestine themselves do not want this money. The Jews have already been protesting, and have sent their protests here, against the loan. Why should they have the money? There is certainly no desire on the part of the Arabs for the money. I am not surprised at that either. Here we are carrying on once more an entirely contradictory policy. We are pushing capital into the country and exporting labour out of the country, refusing to allow labour in and exporting any that we find on the premises. I notice in to-day's paper a telegram from Jerusalem, dated 28th May. It states:
Sixty-three Oriental Jews"—
Those are not the Jews that we know here; they are Yemenites and look like Arabs, though they are Jews—
including old people with children, were arrested this morning as illegal immigrants, on arriving in Palestine on board a sailing vessel from Egypt. They have all been taken in chains to Gaza prison.
Does it not strike the House as somewhat ridiculous that when we are taking such very stringent measures with completely inoffensive people in order to prevent labour going into that colony, at the same time we should be urging them to accept capital and to employ that capital productively, when we are preventing people from having the chance of employment?
In this country we have a Labour party which sees 2,000,000 or 1,500,000 unemployed here, and it has a natural reluctance to see foreigners coming into the country. I think they are wrong. At any rate, their argument does appeal to the public. The trade unions do not want more competition when there are 1,500,000 out of work. But in Palestine the trade unions are begging the Government to allow them to import more labour, to allow an increased immigration into Palestine. Palestine is about the only country in the world where we find the trade unions wanting more immigrants. And that is the country which you select to prevent or restrict further immigration and to deport the unfortunates who have come there without permission.
I think that giving any country more money than it needs will lead to extravagance. I know that the expenditure of this money will lead to increased land values and increased rents, and will not benefit the country or benefit the poorer sections in that country. I am certain that without very strict Treasury control even the best of Governments will find that there is reasonable opportunity for increasing salaries, increasing the administrative side and treating a considerable portion of the loan as a windfall for the administration.
These objections of mine are, of course, not my fundamental objection to the Bill. My real objection goes much deeper. It was that real objection to which the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary objected so strongly on the last occasion when we debated the matter. He not only objected strongly, but it was objected to strongly by pretty nearly all parties in the House, and I think it is necessary that I should do what I can now to substantiate that principal objection of mine to the Bill. That objection is that the administration of Palestine is not fair as between Arab and Jew at the present time, and that this money will not be administered fairly. I admit that that is a very heavy charge to make, and it is necessary that I should show to the House the cumulative evidence there is of the truth of my accusation. If at the end of my proof the House think that there is something in it, I beg them not to vote against the Bill, but to make it clear to the Colonial Office that the sole duty of the Secretary of State is not to support in all circum-
stances the man on the spot, but that it is his duty, as in the past it has been the duty of Colonial Secretaries whose names will last, to formulate his own policy and to see that his subordinates carry out that policy, and that he is not to be merely the mouthpiece of officials.
On the last occasion I tried to show that, in the matter of taxation for instance, a far larger proportion of the taxes was drawn from the immigrants, the new civilised immigrants, than from the indigenous population; that indirect taxes were by far the largest element in the taxation, and that 90 per cent. of these were paid by the immigrants; that the taxes on the land had been reduced year by year and that taxation of imports had been increased year by year. A very good case can no doubt be made out for that, but at the same time there is an illustration which, though it may be lost upon this House, is by no means lost upon the Jews in Palestine.
Take the question of immigration. I tried to show that while we are restricting immigration of Jewish labour into Palestine, and while we are doing our best to prevent tourists, by making them pay a deposit, from entering the country, immigration of the Arabs from Transjordan, and, I think, to a large extent from Syria and Egypt also, is unrestricted—certainly it is from Transjordan—and when you consider the considerable Syrian frontier, it must be very difficult to prevent immigration from there too. There is a difference in treatment which may not strike us as being anything out of the ordinary, but which strikes the Jew as being worse than similar treatment would be in Poland or Rumania, simply because Palestine is his ideal of his future home.
Then, as regards education, it is true that in the Last two years the Government contributed from taxes, paid of course by Jews as well as Arabs, £25,000 a year to the Jewish schools. At the same time there is no Jewish school there which has been built by Government money. Where taxes have been spent on building schools these have been Arab schools. Again, I suppose it hardly strikes the Government of Palestine or the Colonial Office or the Colonial Secretary as being in the least wrong that this money should be spent, solely on the advancement of Arab education, or that
it is unjust, when both parties contribute, that you should allow the Jews themselves with money contributed from America and elsewhere, to build their own schools and that the Government money should all be spent on providing Arab schools. I gave the House on the last occasion the case of the Bagdadi Jew who left a bequest of £100,000 for education in Palestine. The bequest was of course made for Jewish education, but it was divided and half was spent on building an Arab school and the other half has not yet been spent at all and when the Arab school was opened they avoided even mentioning the Baghdadi Jew's bequest—a case of ingratitude which must be more offensive and more unpleasant to the Jews in Palestine even than any of the other things I have mentioned.
Then there is the question of the roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot)—the Member for Protestantism—told me that he thought the roads were beautiful though he admitted that he got on to some that were not so good. I maintain that if he goes there and looks again he will see that the roads which he mentions are all roads leading to Arab villages, and that it is very difficult to get to the Jewish villages. Again, Government money has been spent on the roads to the Arab villages and towns and I give the House a case in point. The two most important cities in Palestine are Jerusalem and Haifa. The road from Jerusalem to Haifa cuts across the Emek Valley running from south to north. That valley is one mass of Jewish settlements. But instead of going to Haifa direct down the valley the road climbs 2,000 feet over the hills to Nazareth which adds 10 miles to thee journey. For heavy traffic going to Haifa there is not only the additional 10 miles but there is this enormous hill to be climed. I think I am right in saying that it is about 2,000 feet.
Take another illustration. Tel Aviv is a town which is growing rapidly though not as rapidly as they say, and we may take it that it has about 80,000 inhabitants to-day. Haifa is 80 miles away to the north, but it is impossible to go from the one place to the other in wet weather unless you go round by Jerusalem. There is in fact no road. A case perhaps could be made out for not having a road there, although I do not call it a good case. There is a Government railway which
runs up the Plain of Sharon, and if they made a road it would reduce the traffic on the railway. One can understand that, although it is a bit old fashioned and pretty hopeless. Still there it is. But even that reason does not apply at all to the other cases in which roads have not been made. I have spoken about the Emek valley. It provides the natural access from the sea to the Jordan valley and Transjordania. I do not think that at any part it is more than 50 feet above the sea level. By using it you avoid the mass of mountains to the north and around Samaria. It has other names—the Plain of Esdraelon, or Valley of Jezreel. At the other end of it from Haifa is Beisan, an Arab city. From Beisan there are roads going to Damascus and roads going down to Jericho; but from Beisan to Haifa, along that beautiful valley, cultivated all the way and dotted with villages, there is no road at all.

Mr. CROSSLEY: There is no road to Jericho.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is a beautiful way from Beisan to Samakh along the Bagdad road.

Mr. CROSSLEY: But not to Jericho. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a road from Beisan to Jericho.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is. I went down it. From Beisan to Samaria and where the Jordan runs out to the Sea of Galilee.

Mr. CROSSLEY: It is the other way. Beisan to Jericho would be the other way. There is a road from Beisan to Tiberias and then on to Damascus.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I say there is a road to-day.

Mr. CROSSLEY: But not to Jericho.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Jericho is to the south.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am perfectly well aware of that. I know Palestine a great deal better than the right hon. Gentleman. I said there were roads from Beisan to the north and there is a road to the south on which I travelled for a part of the way. It is not a good road, but it is a road on which you can travel and by it you can get to Jericho and the Allenby Bridge. These are roads that
are practical, but from Beisan to the west there is nothing at all. The reason is that there is a railway there also, running along the valley, but the railway in that case is not Government property. The railway belongs to the Wafd, which is the religious organisation of the Arabs. But because the railway is there no road can be made through these Jewish settlements. It may be all very well to protect your Government railways, but I do not see any reason for protecting the property of the Wafd, thereby preventing these people who live in that valley from having the advantage of a road along which one can drive a motor car.
That is just one more illustration of the prevailing feeling. The Jews, it is said, can get loans of money from America. The Jews are willing to provide these things themselves! If they are not willing they ought to be willing. Therefore it is said the money that we take in taxes from all is to be used to do these things for the Arabs. Even if Jewish money does come in from America, that is no reason for not giving them exactly the same services as are given to the rest of the population. I do not know whether Members of this House think it all right, but it strikes me as being not "rubbish" but something un-English. What should we think if everything we did here was done for one particular faith, say the Protestant faith, if their churches and schools were built, if health services were provided——

Mr. CROSSLEY: The Catholic population in this country pay education rates and contribute to the education of the children of their Protestant neighbours while having to pay also for the upkeep of their own Catholic schools.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We do not build any denomination's schools or churches. What we do is to provide national schools. We certainly do not help one faith at the expense of another. The objection to which the hon. Member refers from the Catholic point of view is equally strongly held by the Church of England, but we do not distinguish between the two. We do not say that the Catholics are richer and that therefore we shall build Protestant schools and not build Catholic schools. We treat them alike.

Mr. CROSSLEY: The whole of the defence services in Palestine are on behalf of the Jews.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is a very interesting point. I shall come to that presently. I think the feeling is that the Jews ought to look after the Jews and the Government ought to look after the Arabs, and, as the taxes are drawn from all, that seems to me thoroughly unjust. I take a few more illustrations because I wish to make this case quite clear. As I have said, Tel Aviv is a town of some 80,000 inhabitants, but it has a post office which is ridiculous. It is so much a disgrace that the people of Tel Aviv go into Haifa and queue up to send letters.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Into Jaffa.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg pardon, into Jaffa. Under this Bill we are providing for a post office in Jerusalem. We have already put up, with national money not municipal money, a magnificent post office in Jaffa. Tel Aviv wants a post office badly, much worse than Jerusalem, but we are providing out of this loan money for a post office in Jerusalem and for public buildings elsewhere. It is assumed—indeed we were told so the other day—that if the people of Tel Aviv wished they could raise a loan and build a post office. Of course they could, but it is not just that the Government should provide post offices for Arab towns and leave the Jews to provide the public buildings in their own towns. It might be justified on the ground that the Jews are richer than the other people but that is unfortunately no longer the case. In that country to-day the poor people are the Jews and the rich people are the Arabs. On the whole there is infinitely more wealth there among the Arabs than among the Jews.
There is another point. I do not suppose that anywhere else in the British Empire is there a town of 80,000 inhabitants which has not even got a railway station. The Colonial Secretary spoke about the Labour Government years ago having backed this proposal. Years before that a Conservative Government desired to reorganise the railway service in Palestine so that there should be a station in Tel Aviv. It is not there yet, and people have to travel miles in order to get to a train, that does not en-
courage traffic and still less does it encourage the Jews to think that they are going to get a fair deal in their own country.
The next point I would make concerns the municipal ordinance which has been passed into law in Palestine and which presumably has had the visa and approval of the Colonial Office. Under it a number of towns in Palestine have some form of local government—a municipal council with power to raise taxes, principally, and to direct the affairs of the town. On the whole, the Jews in Palestine are better educated than the Arabs. There is not much difference between them in the merchant class but the Jews taken as a whole are better educated. Why then are Arab towns given self Government if they have populations of 2,500 or more, while Jewish towns like Petah-Tikva with a population of 25,000 or 30,000 do not get self-government. Rohoboth, a new town, but a very old settlement, almost entirely Jewish, has no self-government. There can be no possible excuse for that when you have got the more intelligent section of the population, the better educated and quite as old established population, being left without self-government, while the small places are given all these rights. I will not tell the House what I believe to be the reason for that. I am giving facts, and it is a fact that there you are giving self-government to a large number of municipalities which are very small and not to those Jewish colonies or towns which are 10 times as large.
In the Municipal Ordinance you get far more remarkable and unjust things even than that. The population of Jerusalem to-day is 60 per cent. Jews and 40 per cent. Arabs. I was looking through the official report for 1932, the last one available here, and there they say that the majority of the population of Jerusalem is now Jewish, but under this Municipal Ordinance it is so arranged that the majority, the Jewish, educated, intelligent majority, will be in a minority and the Arabs will be in a majority. What sort of feelings does that inspire in the ordinary Jew in Palestine? How have they done it? They have done it by, for the first time in this Ordinance—I do not know that I am right in saying for the first time, but it appears to be for the first time—depriving of the franchise everyone who has not taken up
Palestinian citizenship, so that a British subject, an American Jew, people who would not naturally take up Palestinian citizenship, because either American or British citizenship is better than any other in the world, are deprived of the vote. You get a large, perhaps the best educated, the best politically minded section of the community, deprived of the franchise because that section is much more largely Jew than Arab. The newcomer who has not yet taken up citizenship, the man of a higher civilisation, coming from Western lands, who will not take up Palestinian citizenship, are deprived of the vote. Does that strike the House as being just? Is there any other British colony where the British subject is deprived of the vote because he is a British subject? It would be perfectly simple to alter it and to say that a man might be a British subject and a Palestinian subject as well. It would be simple to say that every Palestinian is ipso facta a British subject, but in order to prevent those Jews having a majority of votes, to which their majority in the population entitles them, these perfectly admirable citizens are deprived of the opportunity of voting.
That is not all. They have also stopped women having votes, and the allegation, of course, is that the Levantines would riot if women got the vote. It is excuses like that that make one more irritated with the Palestinian Government than anything else. The real reason is that, if they had the franchise, the Arab woman would not vote and the Jewish woman would vote, and therefore the women are not allowed to vote anywhere in Palestine, except in Tel Aviv, where they have been allowed to vote all along. I should say that in Tel Aviv, which is purely Jewish and where it is not necessary to create a fictitious Arab majority, British subjects are also still allowed to have their votes for municipal matters. But in Jerusalem the injustice goes even further than that. In Jerusalem you have the old city, and property in the old city is exempt from rates apparently, so these people in the old city, who are over-represented, have the power also of levying what rates they like upon the people who are under-represented, and themselves escape scot-free. We are told that the reason is that the Turks did
not tax property in the old city. Are they going to go rate-free for all time in the old city? When the Turks ruled in Palestine, I should like to know what value they got for their money, for their rates. Here you are having rates to keep the place clean, above all to keep order and to make the place safe, and one part of the city has to pay, and the other part of the city, which shares the benefit, has not to pay. How does that strike the House as being just? I suppose half the population of Jerusalem is in the old city.
Haifa, the third city, or the fourth, has probably got already a Jewish majority. There the constituencies are gerrymandered in the same way, so as to safeguard the Arabs from having the contamination of a Jewish mayor or a Jewish Government. If we lived in a country where that sort of thing was done, we too should lose all faith in the Government, we should lose all faith in their justice, and we should lose all hope. That is exactly what you are doing with the Jews, who were perfectly well prepared seven years ago to be our best friends. They are a people whose every interest it is to support British rule in Palestine, and all those people are being driven away and are acquiring for England exactly the same feelings that they have had for the Governments in Poland and such places. They are shrugging their shoulders and saying, "We do not expect justice, we have never had it, and we shall never get it. It is a hopeless proposition."
I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say that I am not pro-Jew; I am pro-English. I set a higher value on the reputation of England all over the world for justice than I do on anything else or on any other national attribute, but when I see this sort of thing going on, with the Government unable to put any argument on the other side, it makes me perhaps bitterer than even a Jew can be against the Government of Palestine to-day. I need not go into the question of Tel Aviv harbour or the question of the flying ground, which the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day was going to be at Lydda. I should not have thought that would be any good to Tel Aviv. They have an ideal flying ground just across the river, and instead of that, it is to be 10 miles away. For the Jews, employment in the public service is less than is warranted by the relative popula-
tions, and it is far less in the railways. In the hospitals and health services, in the agricultural research, and in the agricultural development, partly under this scheme, you get exactly the same thing. Because the Jews ought to be rich and ought to have money of their own, and do want these things, and sometimes get them, therefore the money which the Government have to spend must be spent for the Arabs.
The last straw has been that the Government now find out of the taxes £23,000 a year for the Arab Sharia courts. They are the domestic courts that deal with divorce and matters of religion, and exactly similar Jewish courts have not got any revenue at all except what they can get from court fees. It may seem a very little thing, but it is the cumulative effect of one injustice like that after another that makes the Jews hopeless of British government, and makes me say that that government at the present time is anti-Semitic and is a disgrace to England.
I must give one other illustration—from Transjordan. The Amir wants to have the Jews there, and the Jews want to go there, but the Government will not let them go because, they say, it is not safe for the Jews in Transjordan. I think they might have invented a better excuse than that. In what country is it safe for the Jews if you take that line of argument? It is not safe for them on Clap-ham Common. It is safe enough for the English, and the whole world is safe for us. Why? Because we can hit back. We have made the world safe for the English, not by police, not by armies, but by arming the people themselves. The worst thing we have ever done in Palestine, worse even than our emigration distinctions, was when the Jews were being massacred and we, at the request of the Grand Mufti, almost at his orders, lined the Jews all up and disarmed them because they were Jews. That is the sort of thing which people remember. It was not under this Government, it is true, but you cannot expect that anybody in that country will look for justice or hope for better things as long as you have that spirit ruling there. I sometimes think that the feeling has now become pro-Nazi. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" goes to Palestine, and is sold freely. The whole
book is a denunciation of the Jew—all lies and abuse. At the same time there is a book published in this country called "The Brown Book of the Hitler Terror." When that got out to Palestine it was banned. It is allowed in this country, but there it is legal to abuse the Jews but not legal to abuse the abusers. Then they were visited by Herr Frick. He stands among the half-dozen best Jew-baiters in the world. He goes to Palestine by the permission of this Government and sees everybody there. I wonder if he paid £60 as a tourist before he was allowed into that country.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sure the law is carried out absolutely impartially, whatever a man's nationality.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: And that law is to pay £60. I am very glad that he paid. The funny thing is that I got in without paying.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: You have to deposit it. Respectable people can get a bank to guarantee them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Respectable people. Then there is the attitude towards the German refugees. All these things together are symptomatic of a degree of anti-Semitism which is revolting in view of what is happening in Germany to-day. I want to make a reference to the speech on the last occasion of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who told me he could not get here to-day. The Noble Lord shares with me many things. He is regarded as being pro-Mohammedan and I as pro-Jew. The fact is that we are neither; we are not pro anything except pro-English. I think he is rather more anxious for the safety of the Empire, and I am perhaps rather more anxious for the good name of the Empire. The mistake he is making is in confusing the Pathans and the splendid Mohammedans of the Punjab with these Levantines in Palestine. The ruling Husseini house claim descent from the Son of Ali who was slain at Kerbela, a magnificent descent, but it is not true. They have taken the name, and every genuine Arab knows it perfectly well. The Levantines themselves are not Arabs. They are not pure anything. They are a cross created throughout the ages—more of a cross than any other nation in the world. These are not Pathans.
When the Noble Lord says that if my speech is read in Palestine there will be riots in Jaffa, he is wrong. It is very unlikely that with the police against them the Levantine Arabs will ever riot. They require to be pretty freely stirred up by the priests before they will riot at all. When they do get going they are a pretty efficient sort of rioter, from the time when, labelled Christians, they cut Hypatia to pieces with scissors, to the time when, labelled Moslems, they did the same to Jewish children at Hebron. The worst way to encourage these people to riot is to show that you are afraid of them, and, if you show you are afraid of them, you will have reason to be. I shall be afraid of riots when I hear the Chief of Police in Palestine is afraid. When I hear that, I should send more men.
The one bright spot in that country is the new police in Palestine. The backbone of that force is English. You cannot do better than the English constable as you see him in Palestine. He is not afraid of rioting. You say that the money spent on them is spent to protect the Jews. I think that is so when you consider racial crimes of violence. I have never heard of a Jew trying to kill an Arab except in self-defence. If you go to any police station, you will find in the records that the crimes of violence and the crimes against which the police are provided in every country are committed by Arabs and not by Jews. When you charge up against the Jews the cost of the police, although the crimes are committed on the other side, the whole of the community benefits and not merely the Jews. Owing to the advance of law and order the Moslem and the merchant are making money, and the orange grove owners, still predominantly Arab, are as much benefited as the Jews themselves. So far as the police and the defence of Palestine are concerned, if you gave Jews arms and allowed them to defend themselves, it would not need so much defence, even from the excellent British police. If you are so flush of money in Palestine, you might spend some of it not in rebuilding the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but in providing decent barracks for the British troops and decent accommodation for the policemen. Public money would be well spent in that way. It might not be reproductive, but it would be better
spent than it is likely to be spent under this loan.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: This Bill corresponds, as far as I can see, in every important detail with the White Paper that we had an opportunity of discussing a week or two ago, but what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lmye (Colonel Wedgwood)——

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not "gallant."

Mr. FOOT: I hope I may still call him my right hon. Friend. What he said induces me to say a word. I am glad to hear the tribute he paid to the police in Palestine. That tribute is one that can be made by anyone with the slightest acquaintance with that country. I hope he will include in his tribute not only the English police, who are undoubtedly the backbone of the service, but also the Arab and the Jewish police. It was a remarkable thing at the time of the recent disturbance how both Arab and Jewish police, at great risk to themselves, some with the loss of life and limb, stood at their posts of danger; and were it not for their intrepidity and courage the troubles of last year would have been very much more widespread than they were.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That was after the reorganisation of the police by Colonel Spicer.

Mr. FOOT: Whoever may be the organiser, he has to depend upon his material, and at that time there were many instances of great courage in which, irrespective of racial claims, men put their duty first in an hour of great danger.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not in 1929.

Mr. FOOT: I am speaking of what was quite evident from the reports on the troubles of last year—the very serious-troubles, serious in their potentiality rather than in their actual achievements. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not pro-Arab or pro-Jew but pro-English I think he was not helping his English friends out there who were face to face with those troubles. The question is, What is to be done? I listened with great interest to all he had to say, but what is to be done in face of the trouble which has grown up in Palestine over many years?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Fiat justicia.

Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman says: "Let justice be done though the Heavens fall"; but it is not so easy to apply those classical passages to the actual experiences of everyday life. What would he do in one of the towns in Palestine where there are very few Jews, say a town of 15,000 to 20,000 people where there are practically no Jews but where there are half-a-dozn English families all concerned with the administration and where, as some months ago, when the troubles came along, great disturbance arose because of the suspicion that the British Government were favouring not the Arab but the Jew?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you say they were afraid?

Mr. FOOT: I am sure that that country is influenced very largely by fear, groundless fear, and that it is the business of the administration of that country, by patience and by thoughtful-ness, to eliminate the fear that undoubtedly exists. What was the cause of the troubles in the earlier years? The fears of the ignorant Arabs, which were played upon by hearsay and, very often, by design.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear!

Mr. FOOT: My right hon. Friend will remember that the clash a few years ago occurred between Arab and Jew, and then it was because of the mutual fears existing. Stories were told that it was the intention of the Jew to rob the Arab of his sacred places in Jerusalem, and those stories, passing from mouth to mouth and from village to village, caused the trouble, which had its roots in fear. The trouble last year was not so much between the Arab and the Jew; the unhappy feature of that trouble was that it was a protest against the administration there. The Arabs had been led to think that the Government were not, as he had suggested, anti-Semitic but pro-Semitic. I am not saying that those fears were well grounded, but the troubles arose from, it may be, the lies that were circulated. That was the fear when the troubles took place not many months ago, when, as I have said, some British administrators were in towns of 15,000 to 20,000 population, when the whole country
was disturbed and when it was stated that the Bedouins were marching in in great numbers from the hillside. No one could have met that trouble, as some had to do, unless they could have convinced those people that the administration was out, as far as it could, to hold the scales level between one section of the community and the other.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If English people get afraid they had much better come home.

Mr. FOOT: They were not afraid None of them left the post of duty. But those administrators in a town, say, of the size of Nazareth, or of Hebron, where the population is almost entirely Arab, and where the white representatives are just a handful, could not have met the difficulty and stopped the trouble without bloodshed if they had not been able to convince the Arabs that the administration stood not for one community or the other but was doing its best to serve the interests of both. I am not referring to any individual, but I am wondering what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have done if he had been in that situation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If I had been in charge in Palestine in 1929, I would have hanged the Grand Mufti outside the Damascus Gate.

Mr. FOOT: I am not now referring to 1929 and I am not sure that the remedy the right hon. Gentleman has referred to would have been effective. Probably extreme measures of that kind, although effective for the time being, would have sown seeds which would have produced future trouble, perhaps not for him but for his successor.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Those measures worked in Cyprus.

Mr. FOOT: It is true that some criticism can be made of the schedule to this Bill upon the lines that my right hon. and gallant Friend has suggested, but no one is responsible for that. In the matter of education more must be spent upon the Arab schools than upon the Jewish schools owing to the simple fact that for many generations the Jews have shown the greater regard for the education of their children. The Arabs
have not lived up to the same standard. It is a question of the laggards in the community being brought up to the general level. It is not by reason of any anti-Semitic purpose that there is to be a larger expenditure upon the Arab schools than upon the schools, but simply because we are face to face with the results of very many years of history in that country. Take the case of the water that is to be obtained. I suppose the Jews will benefit under that scheme as well as the Arabs. Whatever is spent in Palestine it will mean, no doubt, higher rents, it will inure to the benefit of the landlords, but that is an objection to all expenditure. It would be an objection, to a certain extent, to any expenditure in the neighbourhood of Newaastle-under-Lyme. If there is high expenditure of private or public money it will translate itself into higher rents and that objection, which can be urged in every country in the world under our present social conditions, can hardly be brought forward as an argument against this Bill.
Although under this Bill money will be spent more largely for the Arab than for the Jew that is not the purpose of the Government there. I am quite sure that they are not anti-Semitic. There is no desire to be against the Jew or to favour the Arab. The money to be spent upon labour in Palestine will go very largely to the Arab, but that is because the Arab is content to work under conditions such as the Jew would not tolerate. The Arab labourer who will be required for the heavy work that has to be done will be more largely employed, not because there is a desire to employ the Arab as against the Jew, but because for this heavy, labouring work low wages are paid in that country to those people who have riot reached the standard which the Jew has secured for himself. That is something which cannot be helped, because the work has to be done. It is unjust criticism to say that because more Arabs are employed upon that labour than Jews that is another manifestation of the secret anti-Semitic designs that are in the mind of those who administer Palestine. The right hon. Gentleman does not do himself justice. He is attributing to the Government and the administration of Palestine, against whom he has brought very definite and categorical charges in their effort to hold
the scales evenly between two sections with whom they have to deal, purposes which are not in their minds.
I do not think that it is of much purpose to allege, as has been done in the course of the Debate, that we ought to be spending this money here. I do not think that less money will be spent in our distressed areas because this guarantee has been given. If the choice were put to us between spending the money here and spending it in a country which is comparatively flowing with milk and honey, all of us would say that the work ought to be done first of all in our own country, but it was a false argument to put, as was done from the Front Opposition Bench, the condition of the depressed areas of Durham and elsewhere against the conditions which obtain in Palestine.
The main proposals of the Bill were discussed a short time ago, and we need not go into details now. I am satisfied, from what I have been able to see, that the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman have no reasonable ground. He must have looked at the matter from a different angle from mine. He speaks of his own experience there. He went to Arab villages and Jewish settlements. The picture that he drew last time in the Debate was that a great deal of money must have been spent on the roads to Arab villages, and the House was allowed to think that while one could only climb with difficulty into the Jewish settlements there was a broad and inviting road into the Arab villages. The impression left on my mind was the difficulty of the roads which gave access to Arab villages, and I wondered how any cars could be expected to climb into those places. It may be that both of us saw the things we expected to see there. There is always a danger, when one visits a country, of going with pre-conceived notions and seeing only the facts which support the notions with which one started.
The High Commissioner and others have given evidence of their desire to solve one of the most difficult problems which ever confronted this country. It is an experiment upon which the world is looking, because of the special circumstances in which it is being carried out. I would not like it to be thought that the opinion of this House was that those who are charged with the heavy responsibility
are doing anything other than giving justice to the people, so that there may be fair conditions for both the races in the land.

8.41 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With the leave of the House, I would like to intervene again, and first I would refer to the characteristic speech made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), which has made it almost unnecessary for me to say more than a sentence or two about the speech which preceded it. I suppose that it is useless to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) not to continue in this House to traduce the public servants in Palestine whose sole aim is to do justice, and who are unsparing in their personal efforts. I should like it to be known in Palestine that it has been stated in every quarter of the House that the right hon. Gentleman speaks only for himself in this matter, if indeed he does that. His advocacy is as distasteful to many Jews as it is to many others who are not of that persuasion.
If this proposal be worked out on a population basis in order to see how far Jew and Arab will benefit from the works which are to be undertaken under this £2,000,000 loan, you find that the proportion is one-third Jew and two-thirds Arab. I do not think that is very unfair. It was not chosen on that basis. The way in which those items were selected, and the way in which I believe everybody, except the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, would have them selected, was not with meticulous investigation as to whether there was to be exactly this or that proportion between Jew and Arab. The greatest service that we can render will be not to enlarge upon the differences between Jew and Arab but to reconcile their differences in the over-riding wherever interest both lead. It was from that point of view that those items were selected. I say nothing more about that.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) said there were certain points which he would have liked to raise if he had been here on Friday week; I am sorry that he is not here, now that I am going to give an answer. He said
he hoped that there was reasonable security for the loan. I dealt with that on the last occasion very fully. The loan is largely on reproductive revenue-producing enterprises, and the actual revenue will go a very long way if not the whole way to meet the interest upon the loan. In addition to that, I pointed out last time how enormously the finances of Palestine had improved and how much better was the security and the prospects to-day than when we dealt with a similar loan in 1926. The argument advanced, so far as I followed it, by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), really amounted to this, that you must never lend overseas at all. Indeed, I am not sure that my hon. Friend did not carry the argument a step further, and say that you must never lend even in your own country.

Mr. LOFTUS: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I was referring entirely to overseas lending.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg pardon; I thought that we were not even to lend in our own country, but that what we were to do was to save and then put our savings back into our own businesses. After all, what is lending? Lending means that you save and you invest your money, and it does not seem to me to make much difference whether you invest it in your own business or in someone else's business. If your own business has as much money as it needs for the time being, you must lend for reproductive enterprises to be carried out by someone else. If the argument be that it is unsound for this country ever to lend abroad whatever the security may be, and however many orders we may get in return, in that case we might as well, as far as the export trade is concerned, put up the shutters. That seems to me to be a terrible counsel of despair.
Then the hon. Member for West Houghton said that he would like to help the distressed areas but, as was pointed out so well by the hon. Member for Bodmin, there is nothing antipathetic between this Bill and helping the distressed areas, and, indeed, I hope the Bill will help the distressed areas. It is not as though I were coming to the House to ask for a grant-in-aid. I am not doing that at all. I think that last time I justified up to the hilt the security on which this loan is to be given. I am not asking for a
grant-in-aid for Palestine at the expense of a grant-in-aid to be given to Durham. This is a guarantee for a loan, and Clause 2 of the Bill contains a provision that all the orders shall be placed in this country. I do not pursue the argument that the whole of the £2,000,000 will find its way out in exports, I am only concerned with the contracts which will have to be placed outside Palestine, and which will represent something like £600,000 worth of orders coming into this country; and I hope that, directly or indirectly, those orders will benefit more than one distressed area in this country.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) said two rather curiously contradictory things. He said he did not know how the country was going to be settled with Arabs, because he did not think there was any land; and then he said that he thought the restrictions on immigration were too drastic. If he were correct, and if there were no more land, then, obviously, the restrictions on immigration would not be nearly drastic enough; but, fortunately, he is not correct. There is a certain amount of land, and, after all, you can put land to better or worse use. Irrigation experience has shown that land which before only supported a very sparse population can, when properly treated, support a much larger one, and in much more prosperous conditions. The hon. Member asked me where the land was on which we were going to settle these Arabs. I am not going to tell him, because very able officers are engaged in surveying and making contracts to buy land, and, if I said in this House exactly where the land was which we were thinking of buying, so far as we have not already acquired it, for the resettlement of displaced Arabs, I should be acting rather foolishly, and the result would probably be that the price of the land would be put up.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many there are?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I gave the exact figure on the last occasion, but, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman did not wait for the answer. Speaking from memory, I think there are 863 families, but at any rate on the last occasion I gave the exact figure, and he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The figures given in this report are much less than that

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know to what report the right hon. Gentleman is referring.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is your own report

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Really, the right hon. Gentleman asks for information, he is given information, and then he says it is not what he wants. I do not give information without having made careful inquiry, and on the last occasion, when I was asked for the number, I obtained it. If the right hon. Gentleman will look back at the Debate, he will see the tests with which the Arabs have to comply before they come within the class of those whom we are undertaking to resettle. The hon. Member for Westhoughton says quite rightly that we must be absolutely fair in this matter as between Jew and Arab. I entirely agree, and that has been the sole intention and object, not only of this Government, but of every Government that has been responsible for the mandated territory since we took over the Mandate 14 or 15 years ago. That will continue to be the aim, and that is the daily work of the men who are serving that country so well out there. It is also the intention of everyone in this House, and I sincerely hope that that intention will not, even by one single Member of the House, be traduced and misrepresented in the future.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I must apologise for intervening at this late stage of the Debate, but there is one point which I should like to put before the House, and which, to my mind, has not been emphasised sufficiently. I speak as a strong supporter of the Bill, and agree with every word that has been said in favour of it to-night. It is a desirable Bill, and I am delighted that it has been so well received in all parts of the House. I want to refer specially to the provision in the Schedule with regard to water supply and the surveying of water resources. It seems to me that this survey is a very important piece of work, which ought to be done thoroughly, and I have no doubt that the Government of Palestine will see to it that it is done
thoroughly. Water is the great need of Palestine. The supplies are very limited, and must be conserved in every possible way. Therefore, the Government should make the fullest inquiries and researches, so that the water which may be found can be utilised to the best advantage.
Some time ago I asked a question in the House with regard to a project which is being carried out in connection with electricity works which are being set up on the banks of the Jordan a few miles south of the Sea of Galilee. If that project be carried out as it is intended to be, it will inevitably spoil altogether the Sea of Galilee as we know it to-day, because the electricity company will have the power to raise the level of the Sea of Galilee by some nine or 10 feet in certain seasons, and to reduce its level by another nine or 10 feet in a dry season. The Sea of Galilee is a shallow lake, and, therefore, it is of vital importance that no serious tampering with its level should be allowed. If in the high water season it were raised 10 feet, it would submerge a great many miles of villages and land round about the lake, while if in a dry season the water were allowed to go down by 10 feet, it would lay bare great foreshores which would become a breeding-ground for all kinds of malarial and other troubles, and would spoil the lake both for the fishermen and for the natives who live on its banks. I know that the Minister is very sympathetic in the matter, and I hope he will see to it that a proper inquiry is made into the whole question of water supply. The Sea of Galilee and the Jordan are the only real sources of surface water, and it seems to me very desirable that they should be conserved in every possible way. For that reason, I hope the Government will see their way to protect the Sea of Galilee, which has such sacred memories to most of us and which is serving such a useful purpose. I am glad that the Government of Palestine have included a review of the water resources, so that the whole question can be gone into and the best possible use made of the water supplies.

8.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: The argument has been made use of that this money might be better spent at home, but the Government feels that it has a national and an international responsi-
bility in regard to the matter. If the Churches spent all their resources at home, I fear that they would not be carrying out their duty to the peoples of the world. There are some Churches which have an income from all sources of, perhaps, about £3,000 a year and, perhaps, £2,000 of it is not only not spent in their own neighbourhood or in their own country but is spent abroad. They have a responsibility, and they feel that responsibility, with regard to the peoples of the world. No less money is spent in their particular neighbourhood as the result of that expenditure which goes abroad, and which in their opinion is absolutely necessary for the raising up of the peoples of the world. If any additional expenditure be required in any parish or circuit, a round robin goes round the whole congregation and the people rise to the occasion. So it is with our national responsibilities. We have this mandated territory in Palestine, and we ought to consider it a privilege to live in this day and generation when we are assisting that wonderful, historic country. I feel it a privilege that in this House of Commons we are helping the people there.
It has been said that there are certain Jews in Palestine who are not at all in favour of this guarantee, not that they have anything against the British Government, not that they do not require the money, but that they realise that it is putting a burden on them which they should not be asked to bear. I think they are a minority, if there are such people, and, so far as I have been able to gather, the opinion of many of that race who are scattered about here, they are all looking forward to the development of that country, which they could not possibly carry out but for this guarantee.
There is one aspect of it which I, as an Irishman should like to impress upon the Government. We are going to help this country by the force of the British character. We are going to help it financially. These people, English, Jews and Arabs, are all looking to the British Government to see that fair play is done between them. I believe it is part of the British character to see that fair play is done, but we have had an unhappy experience in Ireland. I do not intend to argue it now, but I only wish to impress on the Government the history of that country as we have known it for the last
14 years. Might I also refer to the question of the possibility of the people even of India losing faith in the British Government. I only mention that in order to impress upon the Government the fact that these people in Palestine are trusting to the common sense and the great good nature and the bigness of the British people and, when the time comes, if it ever comes, when trouble arises between one and the other, or between the three, the British Government will see that they do not leave them to their own resources but act with a firm hand and see that justice is done.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Skelton.]

9.2 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: If this Bill stood alone, its reception would not be by any means unfriendly. It has been commended to the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland as a small experiment in a new form of land settlement, and, although the advance which the Government contemplates in these favourable circumstances when prices and interest rates are low is small as compared with that which was made in much less favourable circumstances when prices and interest rates were high after the War, it is not negligible as compared with what has been possible in recent years. The whole House is, I think, glad that the Government are taking, at any rate, experimental steps towards closer settlement of the land of Scotland. We, therefore, gladly recognise the interest which the Secretary of State has shown in the problem and only regret that he is not going faster. I expressed these regrets on the Second Reading, and the Secretary of State replied that it did not lie in my mouth to make such complaints as I was a Free Trader. That seemed to me an irrelevant argument. It is useless to retort upon us that it is only Protection
that makes a land settlement policy possible. The truth is that the Protectionist policy of the Government has not merely failed to help, but has, in fact, greatly aggravated the difficulties of agriculture. It was the partial withdrawal of Britain from the markets of the world in 1932 which gave the final downward spin to the spiral of world prices. I am afraid that the increase which was secured by Protection in home prices as compared with world prices afforded but meagre compensation to the British farmer. Again, the effect of Ottawa was to destroy the equilibrium——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are now on the Third Reading of the Bill and can only discuss what is in it.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I submit respectfully to your Ruling, and I agree that I was getting a little beyond the limits of discussion, in the Third Reading stage of a Bill. I am in this difficulty. This is an argument which at successive stages has been thrown in my teeth, and it is one which I can easily smash. It is very difficult, as I have always had it thrown at me after I have spoken, to get an opportunity of answering it, but I have to bow to your Ruling, and as this is not the occasion, I must seek some other. This, at any rate, I can say. I can meet the right hon. Gentleman on his own ground. I complain that the money provided in this Bill is insufficient for the task which confronts the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he tells us that, with certain exceptions, it can only be applied to the new experiments. He tells us, for example, that in the Highlands of Scotland, and in the non-crofting counties, in districts far from the great cities, we cannot anticipate that acceleration of land settlement under this Measure which is necessary to meet the long-standing demands of ex-service men and those who have been seeking vainly for land for many years past. I would therefore say that I am prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman on his own ground. Recognising that we are now, as he says, a Protectionist country, I say that the Government, if they have such confidence in the blessings which their economic policy is capable, as they believe, of conferring upon agriculture, and if they think that
the tenants under their scheme will be able not only to earn a livelihood, but to make a return of 3 per cent. on the capital value of their equipment to the State as their landlords, ought to be creating holdings not at the rate of 1,000 in three years, but of 1,000 a year. It is not for them to call upon me to show confidence in their policy. It is for them to show it, and to advance resolutely on this line of land settlement.
The opposition to this Bill has developed mainly against the proposals which are contained in the White Paper which accompanied it, or, in other words, mainly against the methods which the Government propose to adopt to spend the money which we shall be granting them if we pass this Bill. The proposals involve withholding from future tenants outside the Highlands of Scotland the benefit of landholders' tenure, security of tenure, power of bequest, freedom of improvement, compensation for improvements, freedom from rent and rating upon improvements, and fair rents fixed by the Land Court. These are the rights secured to the tenants under the Land Acts and the rights which will be withheld from the new tenants. Under the new proposals of the Government how do these things stand? We are informed that if we vote this money and authorise the Government to make this investment of public money, it will make to us a return of 3 per cent., but, on the other hand, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when we express some doubts as to whether they will not be hard upon the tenants, and say that that return of 3 per cent. is far more than any private landlord is now exacting from his tenants in Scotland, attempts to quiet our fears by saying that that is a mere estimate, that there would be no effort to exact it from tenants if they found it difficult to pay, and that the sole criterion of the rent would be what was thought reasonable for a tenant to pay. But of what value are those assurances?
This is no new principle. The Department has been engaged for years past in fixing reasonable rents for its tenants, on the one hand, and in satisfying the Treasury on the other. Every scheme has had to satisfy the Treasury before it has been launched. The Depart-
ment has always been torn between its anxiety to be fair to its tenants and to make a scheme a success, and to present the Treasury with estimates of rent which would satisfy them. In fact, we know that every rent which has been fixed by the Department of Agriculture has been lowered when it has been reviewed by the Land Court; if there is any exception to that I should be very interested to hear particulars of it.
Now the Secretary of State is forcing an additional burden upon the Department. Not merely has he got to satisfy the Treasury on the lines on which the procedure has recently run, but there is also this undertaking, or, at any rate, statement of intention by the Secretary of State for Scotland at the time when these plans were agreed upon with the Treasury, contained in the White Paper presented to this House, and which accompanies this Bill, that, in fact, 3 per cent. will be obtained on this investment. The Treasury are bound to insist, as far as they can, upon the fulfilment of this undertaking. The Under-Secretary told us in Committee that there was no pledge to the Treasury and no guarantee. We do not allege that, but we shall indeed be interested if any denial is forthcoming—and we shall welcome it—of the statement that this scheme has received Treasury approval on the basis that a 3 per cent. return will be received on the capital outlay. If that be the case that consideration must be dominant in the relations between the Treasury and the Department of Agriculture in this land settlement scheme. Therefore not only do we denounce this scheme to screw 3 per cent. out of tenants, but we say that they ought to have free access to the Land Court for fixing rent, not on the basis of agricultural holdings——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman now appears to be trying to argue an Amendment which he was not entitled to move on the Report stage.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am arguing about the investment of the money which we are granting. We are invited under the Bill to invest some £250,000 a year, and we are told that if that sum is invested in land settlement it will return an income to the Treasury of 3 per cent. I am arguing that that cannot be done m justice to the tenant, or that if any such
effort is to be made, the tenant ought to have the security of an appeal to the Land Court to prevent extortion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is exactly that point which the right hon. Gentleman cannot argue. He is entitled to argue that the amount asked by the Treasury is too high under the Bill, but he must not argue an Amendment he was not permitted to move on the Report stage.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I bow to your Ruling, and I am grateful to you for allowing me as much latitude as you have done. It is very difficult to discuss the Bill in some ways and at certain stages, and I am very grateful for the latitude you have allowed me and which has enabled me to make the point sufficiently clear. I was hoping that I might have been able to go further and to make clear to the House how serious is the deprivation of the rights of landholder's tenure which the new tenants will not enjoy, but I will refrain from pursuing that line of argument further, in obedience to your Ruling.
Perhaps it would not be out of order if I said, generally, that when we are making an investment of public money of this magnitude in a scheme of land settlement it is only right that this House should be careful to ensure, on the one hand, that all that is fair and reasonable is paid by the tenant and that he makes a fair return upon the capital which this House will be supplying to him if we pass this Bill, and on the other hand that no harsh demands are made upon the tenant. It has been suggested that we ought to be satisfied to trust the Department of Agriculture. It has been said from the Conservative benches that private landlords are sometimes harsh, and that there was a case for liberal land legislation to deal with the exceptional landlords, but that the Department of Agriculture was never harsh and that we could always trust it. I say frankly that that is not our practical experience in the Highlands of Scotland. On the contrary, the rents fixed by the landlord have generally been lower than those originally fixed by the Department.
Under the Department the tenants experience the difficulty of not being able to deal with a man who can give them a decision on any point which they wish to raise. This is no criticism of the Depart-
ment, which I have always maintained is as sympathetically administered as any Government Department can possibly be, but it is inherent in dealing with a Government Department that the ordinary tenant in a remote county of Scotland cannot get into touch with a responsible man who can give him a decision. There is nobody in the position of a landlord or with the powers of an ordinary factor with whom he can get into touch, to talk things over, to discuss whether or not a drain shall be put in here, or a fence shall be replaced there, or an improvement made to the house. There is no one who has not to report back to some higher official, who in his turn has to report to the Department, which in its turn has to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State, and he in his turn has to get the leave of the Treasury to the proposal. It is not the case that the Department is an easy landlord for the tenant to deal with. Moreover, the man representing the Department represents the public. He feels himself on strong moral ground in dealing with the tenant, certainly on stronger ground than the private landlords. He represents the interests of the public, and he feels it his duty to drive a hard bargain in the interests of the public.
In the Second Reading Debate I quoted the case of a farm in Caithness where only the other day the sitting tenant had not given the notice required in order to make an improvement under the Agricultural Holdings Act. It was a case, so I am informed on absolutely impartial authority, in which any private landlord would have made a concession, but the Department officials thought it necessary to stand on their statutory rights in the interests of the public, and the result was that this man did not get that measure of compensation that he would have got from almost any private landlord. It is a great mistake on the part of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, and hon. Members who sit on the benches above the Gangway on this side, to foster this implicit faith in Government Departments as always being generous, expansive and sympathetic in their attitude towards tenants. It is not true, and if hon. Members think about it they must realise that it cannot be true in the nature of the circumstances in which these very able and very sympathetic officials work, because they are responsible not to one man but to a whole
hierarchy of officials, who in the last resort are controlled by the Treasury in the interests of the taxpayers as a whole.
The rights which the tenants are receiving under this Measure, or under the White Paper proposals, are no substitute for those which they will lose under the Land Acts. I realise that if I pursued the subject further I should be trespassing upon the indulgence of the House and that I might come into conflict with the Chair on points of order. I would therefore only say, in conclusion, that the Department under the Acts that have been previously passed and under this Act will have power to deprive smallholders in the future of those rights that have been won for them after many years of struggle. They are rights which the Farmers' Union of Scotland are anxious not merely to keep for those who have now got them, but they want to get them for a larger number of farmers who have never had them. It is deplorable that they should be withheld in the future from a class similar to those which now enjoy them.
The happy results of the Land Acts in the past, to which the Nairne Committee paid glowing tribute, have been largely due to the emancipation and the initiative of the tenants themselves. They knew that when they spent money on an improvement they would not be rated upon it, that they would not be rented upon it, and that they would be sure of getting compensation upon it. That is what has changed the face of things in the Highlands in the last 20 or 30 years. You are now bringing them back under a landlord who is harsher, necessarily harsher, than most private landlords. We deeply regret that. We think that, rather than that you should trust to the Department planning the lives of these men, planning all their improvements under this new scheme, you should have trusted to their freedom, initiative and enterprise and should have given them compensation for all they do to improve their holdings. We object to this Bill because it is a departure from that principle of freedom which has made the Land Acts so successful and has transformed the face of the Highlands of Scotland.
We recognise that the grant of money proposed under the Bill represents an
advance on what was possible in recent years, and we shall watch with interest the development of the Government's experiments. Having expressed our views and having voted in Committee against the deprivation of these rights, which is not inherent in the Bill but which is inherent in the White Paper which accompanies it, we do not propose to offer further opposition to the Bill at this stage, but we shall watch with sympathetic interest the results of this experiment.

9.25 p.m.

Lord DUNGLASS: This Bill, to which we are asked to give the Third Reading this evening, has provoked an amount of discussion which would seem at first sight to be out of proportion to its size and apparent simplicity. It is, however, never a bad rule to suspect innocence, and I need not probe beneath the surface here to see that, although the proposal is a straightforward one, namely, to accelerate and extend land settlement in Scotland, the method and the practice which will be adopted under this Bill involve, as my right hon. Friend has said, material and fundamental differences. It is a State enterprise; in every case the State will be the landlord. The nature of the holdings is closely defined: they will be for intensive cultivation. The localities are defined; they will be concentrated near the large consuming centres, and the market will be—at any rate so long as the present Government's policy holds—protected. That association of conditions is not mere chance; it is deliberate policy. It is clear that when the Secretary of State devised this new design of land settlement he must have had at the back of his mind the conception of a Scotland in which large areas have become over-industrialised and in which certain industries have become, as far as we can see, permanently overstaffed. He has been impressed—and has acted on the impression—with the necessity of bringing to the rescue of Scotland any new favourable conditions which may exist in order to redress the unequal balance which has resulted from our reliance upon those heavier industries of steel, coal and shipbuilding upon which we have had to depend very largely in Scotland.
Although there may be criticism of the Bill as not being a spectacular effort to
set some thousands of men on the land in one year; though the Bill may be criticised as modest, and though it may be said that the cash is limited, yet the fact remains that the Secretary of State has made this experiment. It is the first effort of its kind that has been made on an organised and appreciable scale to bring the land as a real factor to the relief of the distress of Scotland as we see it at the present time, and we must not lose sight of that background when we are discussing this Bill.
A happy domestic turn has been given to our debate by the obvious parental pride which the Liberal bench opposite have shown in the policy of land settlement. Since for some years now there has been a progressive decline in the birth rate of Liberal ideas, perhaps it would be ungenerous of the House if it did not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on this apparently healthy survival. I hope that I shall not be detracting from those congratulations in any way if I say that their attitude to their offspring is somewhat reminiscent of the parents who, having been so clever as to produce a child, dump it on somebody's doorstep, and only when it has been nourished and protected and has come into a fortune which no one could have foreseen, do they come along and say how clever they were to produce it.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Where is the fortune?

Lord DUNGLASS: The right hon. Gentleman comes along and says how keen he is on land development and how he wishes it to be extended, but he loses no opportunity of going round Scotland and condemning the only policy that will improve conditions in Scotland.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I ruled that the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) would not be in order in discussing the general policy of the Government on this occasion, and I cannot allow the Noble Lord to pursue this line of argument.

Lord DUNGLASS: Perhaps I was pursuing the right hon. Gentleman opposite a little too closely. That he has been through Scotland lately I have no doubt. He has seen the extension of tomato- and raspberry-growing, and if he
was a smallholder I am sure he would rather operate within a regular and protected market than in one subject to free imports——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point does not arise on the Third Reading.

Lord DUNGLASS: I must not pursue it any further. The right hon. Gentleman—and I think this will be in order—has brought up in his speech the question of tenure. That question, if this policy is to succeed, is as nothing in importance to the continuity of the Government's policy as it stands at present. There I must leave the matter; both his and my ideas on security of tenure, fair rent and compensation must, I am afraid, go into cold storage for another Debate. My hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Banffshire (Sir M. Wood), has used in this connection an argument against which I feel I must warn him. On the Committee stage he twitted the Under-Secretary, saying that the Farmers' Union of Scotland have asked for this kind of tenure and asking who should know better than the tenant what is best for him. I should warn him that in a very few weeks now he will have the tenant farmer of Scotland coming and asking for a complete prohibition of meat imports.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point does not arise on the Third Reading.

Lord DUNGLASS: When the time comes, the hon. Gentleman will be found on the side of the farmers. One word on the method which the Secretary of State has adopted, and the way in which he is going to dispose of this money that Parliament has voted. He is right not to make a spectacular effort at this moment to set some thousands of unemployed people on the land. The country as a whole is not satisfied at the present time that land settlement is an economic proposition, and it is essential that when you are embarking on a scheme of this kind you should have the highest possible percentage of successes and the lowest possible percentage of failures. I, therefore, think that the Secretary of State is absolutely right to begin with those men whom he considers to have sufficient experience and sufficient capital. He is beginning with the good risks, and I think that he will not have a high percentage of failures. I would, however,
ask him to consider whether in 3 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the cases he might not risk a little more, and whether he would not deliberately—I emphasise the word "deliberately"—experiment with a few of the men who obviously have sufficient experience and who equally obviously have not sufficient capital, or as much capital as the other applicants. If he does this, whether they fail or succeed, I believe that the value of his experiment will be definitely enhanced.
There is another point which I hope he will look into, and that is whether part of the money might not be spent in acquiring land which could be cultivated in conjunction with the houses in which people are living already. The Department would in that way save money on houses and there would be more available for the acquisition of land. That is a point which I think should be explored. Now that this experiment is definitely on its way I hope that hon. Members in this House and people in Scotland will do their best to further it, because it may well be the seed out of much greater things may grow.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: The Noble Lord has twitted the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) on his attitude towards this Bill but he scarcely used the correct metaphor. The complaint of the right hon. and gallant Member is that his child is not being properly brought up, indeed, is being led in the wrong direction——

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Murdered.

Mr. H. STEWART: I will not go that far. At any rate, is not being trained in the right way. That is a view which I have already expressed. I do not believe that the old agricultural tenure can be improved by this new method, but since our representations have not succeeded the greater duty, therefore, rests on the shoulders of the Scottish Office to see that this new form of tenure is applied in a way which will give the smallholder the greatest possible measure of freedom to use his holding as he desires, give the fullest possible rights of security and the highest rates of compensation. We can only trust the Scottish Office to carry out
this Measure in a way most beneficial to smallholders. In regard to the question of houses which I raised during the Committee stage, I received an assurance that the present type of house was not to be stereotyped, that, in fact, new houses were being considered. I take it that improved houses will be erected in the future. Let me make one suggestion in this connection. On holdings considerably greater than six, seven or eight acres, holdings of 50 acres, which are intermixed with the smaller holdings, you really need a larger house. Very often you have a larger family, there is more to do, more comings and goings, you have a bigger holding to work, and from the practical point of view a larger dwelling is needed. In some of the new houses some of the rooms do not have a fireplace. That may be a small point, but to the housewife it is important. In the older type of houses there was a fireplace in each room, and I hope this will obtain in the future.
In passing the Third Reading of this Bill, may I make a suggestion to the Secretary of State. We are intensely interested in this new scheme, this new endeavour. In the old days we used to concentrate on the larger type of holding. This is a new kind of holding and is intended to meet a new need. I think the Secretary of State was right when he suggested that there should be some method of bringing the house to the holding. I would sugegst that there ought to be some means of making these holdings part-time holdings. That is of vital importance close to industrial areas. In view of the novelty of this proposal, would it not be worth while making a special report to Parliament, in about one year's time, on the working of the scheme, as to how it is going on, whether the special culture of tomatoes and fruit is progressing, whether the men are prosperous, whether egg production is paying, whether the holdings are too small or too large. That would be of real value to the House. I congratulate the Secretary of State upon this piece of work. It may not be acceptable in all its details to all of us, but I think that hon. Members opposite really in their hearts welcome any Measure which seeks to place greater numbers on the land and which seeks to join the two great forces of the unemployed industrial man and the vacant spaces of our country.

9.42 p.m.

Lord SCONE: In the course of its passage this Bill has met with considerable criticism, but I think that everyone, with the possible exception of the remnants of the Liberal party, will agree that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have managed to make a very good case for the Measure. It is difficult at this stage to make any definite criticism in view of the narrow limits of a Third Reading Debate, and especially of this Debate, but I should like to refer for one moment to a question which must now be regarded with abhorrence by the Secretary of State—the 3 per cent. return. I have made certain investigations into the position of smallholders in my part of the country, and I think that in a number of instances 3 per cent. will not be unreasonable and that in a few cases even more may be obtained. I do not think the Government are unreasonable in seeking, in the first place, to get 3 per cent., but at the same time I think there may be a great many cases in which they will not be able to get it without inflicting hardship on the tenant. However, the assurance given by the Under-Secretary in the course of the Committee stage, and also on the Floor of the House, ought to satisfy anyone that full consideration will be given to those tenants who can really show that a 3 per cent. basis would inflict undue hardship upon them. The point has been made that land settlement is the offspring entirely of the Liberal party. If that be so, then if the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) had remained for any length of time as Secretary of State for Scotland the child would undoubtedly have died of starvation. As far as I can make out the main grumble of the right hon. Gentleman is that his successor has endeavoured to carry out what he himself made no effort to carry out during his own tenure of office.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That statement is so absoutely contrary to the fact that I must intervene. At a time of great financial stringency, as the Noble Lord is aware, I did manage to provide that the existing rate of land settlement should go on unhampered. So far from having made no effort, I made every conceivable effort to maintain settlement at the highest possible rate.

Lord SCONE: Naturally, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I
would merely add that to most Members of the House the enthusiasm he showed at that time for land settlement was nothing to the enthusiasm that he shows now for carping at the Government policy of land settlement as adumbrated in this Measure. There are one or two other small points to which I would refer. I trust that in setting up the holdings very careful attention will be given to their position in order to ensure that a market may be found for the produce within a reasonable distance. Undoubtedly a number of smallholders to-day are able, and even during the worst period of depression were able, not merely to make both ends meet, but to make a very comfortable livelihood, and that was almost entirely due to the fact that they had at their door a good market to which they could take their products very cheaply. Even if the new holdings are to be set up in industrialised areas, unless the market is fairly accessible the cost of transport of what is perishable produce will be such that a great deal of the profit which might otherwise accrue will be lost.
As my Noble Friend has said, it is absolutely essential that as many as possible of those who take part in this new experiment should be successful. Otherwise, the progress of land settlement is likely to be imperilled. I see no reason why, provided sufficient care is taken in picking tenants, the vast majority should not be successful. Failures there must be, and the scheme must be watched very carefully as it proceeds. But most of the criticisms raised against the Bill in its passage through the House have been proved to have very little substance. I cannot follow most of the points that have been raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, for I should certainly be out of order in doing so, but I think I can assure the House that in Committee the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary were able to persuade the Committee that hardly any of the criticisms of the Bill had any real substance in fact. I think the Bill will be welcomed by the vast majority of those engaged in agriculture in Scotland, although a good many of them may still feel a certain amount of doubt as to its ultimate success. In conclusion I would like to stress upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that no scheme like this can hope to be really successful
unless it is accompanied in future by that control of imports which is so abhorrent to the right hon. Member for Caithness.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Bill contains some matters of which we do not approve; there are certain qualifications which we would rather see omitted; but the Scottish Standing Committee has practically settled the shape in which the Bill is now submitted to the House to be passed, and we must accept what has been decided by that Committee. I would suggest to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that they might give some consideration to the point made by the Noble Lord who represents Lanark (Lord Dunglass), as to those who apply for these holdings having a certain amount of capital, and that an experiment might be made by selecting certain people with experience and giving them an opportunity, even though they might have no capital, or a very limited amount of capital, and certainly not so much capital as it is evidently the intention of the Government to require as a qualification for selection for a smallholding. I think that was a very good suggestion, and I hope that the Scottish Office will consider it very carefully and make the widest possible experiment in that direction. I am certain that very large numbers of people who are now in industrial constituencies and suffering from unemployment have originally had experience of land cultivation, and that they would welcome any opportunity to' go back to the land and to make a fresh start.
The other matter I want to refer to was raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). He suggested that Members on the Labour benches had unbounded faith in the Scottish Department. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he himself was at one time at the head of the Scottish Office. I do not think he would suggest that we had unbounded faith in his operations there. We at least consider that if he had land settlement so much at heart as he has been making it appear during the various stages of the Bill—on Second Reading he spoke for about an hour on the subject, and in the Standing Committee he delivered a variation of that hour's oration on several occasions, and to-night he has delivered another variation of the
same speech—if he had shown as much zeal for land settlement when he was Secretary of State, we should have had as much faith in him as he thinks we have in the present occupants of the Scottish Office. We have faith in everyone who comes to this House and outlines a Government Measure—faith that he is sincere in his desire to improve the lot of those for whom a particular Measure is proposed. We think that we are quite well qualified to judge as to the conscientiousness of the occupants of the Scottish Office.
I am reminded of a picture I saw exhibited in the Glasgow People's Palace, in which Faith was indicated by an individual going across a river, but with a stick always tapping the space in front of him to find out the stepping-stones. While we have faith, we believe in reaching out to find whether the stepping-stones are still there, so that we shall not be swept away by an overflowing stream. That is the attitude we take up. While we have faith in the conscientiousness of those who are endeavouring to explain Measures from the Government Front Bench, at the same time we seek to secure safeguards that would ensure that the ideals put forward are in a Measure; but if we cannot secure that effect, all we can do, with the voice of the House against us, is to wish a Minister the best possible success in accomplishing the ends in view.
We wish this Bill to have the best possible effect, and although we do not agree with all its provisions we think it ought to have its chance of being operated. We hope that in the light of this experiment we shall be enabled to judge of subsequent Measures dealing with the same question. Hon. Members on these benches have not been behind hon. Members who sit below the Gangway in their efforts to get various Measures concerning land settlement extended and improved. We have brought up this subject by means of questions and Debate in this House, and we have endeavoured to get more people back on the land. We know the history of Scotland in this respect and we know that there are large tracts of land now given over to pleasure and to game which might be made paying propositions under a land settlement scheme, and not only that but propositions which would be beneficial to the health of the people. I hope that if this experiment
proves successful it will be extended, and that every effort will be made to put more people on to the land of Scotland. I hope also that an experiment will be made on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), and that where those desirous of going upon the land have no capital or only very little, they shall be assisted by the Government in the same way as people going abroad have been assisted in the past.

9.57 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: All I would say about the speech to which we have just listened is that it and the speeches of other Members of the hon. Gentleman's party will be read with great amazement by hundreds and thousands of smallholders throughout Scotland. I cannot understand the attitude of the Labour party on this Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN: My attitude on this Bill is the same as the attitude of Liberal Members. I am not dividing against it. If they have any objection to it why do they not divide against it?

Sir M. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman said he had criticised it. I fail to remember any point of criticism which he or his colleagues brought forward with regard to it. However I do not suppose it is worth while going further into that question to-night. In my opinion the importance of the Bill lies not so much in what it contains, as in the fact that the Government have used it as a means of announcing what is tantamount to a new land policy, which if developed can have only one result, namely, the scrapping of the policy represented by the Act dealing with landholders' tenure in Scotland. That Act was passed to meet a demand from the crofters in Scotland and afterwards from smallholders throughout the rest of the country. It was passed as a Measure of great advantage to them. If it has not been a good thing for them I would expect some evidence to be forthcoming from them that they are dissatisfied. The hon. Gentleman himself must have been one of those who voted for that Measure when it was passed. It was one of the first Measures passed with the assistance of the Parliament Act and it was supposed to be a great achievement at the time. I am bound to say that I regret that the hon. Gentleman should be associated with this new policy
which I believe must eventually mean the defeat of the policy with which he was associated when he first entered Parliament.
I do not know how far we can go on this occasion in discussing the system of tenure which it is proposed to set up under the Bill. During the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman told us he would give us a copy of the proposed lease and he has distributed a paper showing the conditions of let. It is not quite a lease and I should like to know from the Under-Secretary whether there is to be a lease in these cases or whether this document represents all to which the smallholders will be asked to commit themselves. My own impression of these conditions of let is that they are undoubtedly harsh. On reading them I am more than ever persuaded of the necessity for these smallholders having the full protection of the Land Court. Paragraph 13 of the conditions is as follows:
In the event of tenants failing, in the opinion of the Department, to implement their obligations with regard to maintenance, under these general conditions of let, the Department in their discretion shall have full power and liberty upon giving one month's notice of their intention to do so, to carry out the necessary work and recover the cost from the tenants concerned.
Surely that is putting the tenants far too much in the power of the Department. If the Secretary of State re-reads this condition I think he must agree that it places the tenant in an unfair position. I should have thought that a difference of opinion such as is indicated in that paragraph is one that might well be submitted to the Land Court. The Department has not the experience which enables them to determine matters of that kind. They are not factors. They are not land agents. Special experience is required to decide questions of this kind. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is going to place the tenants under the necessity of agreeing to allow the Department to decide these matters without any real right of appeal or protest. I say that it is a harsh condition, and we know that the tenants cannot make any effective protest against it. He wants a home and he wants a holding, and if you have a man without a home, he will sign almost anything. There are other criticisms of the same kind that one might make with regard to other parts of the conditions of let. I will give another, No. 21:
In the event of breach of any of these general conditions of let by tenants or of their having an award of sequestration announced affecting their estates … then, in the option of the Department, the tenancies of such tenants shall ipso facto come to an end.
Is it right that the Department should have the power to bring a tenancy to an end merely if in their opinion the conditions of let have been broken? Why put the Department into such a position as that? There again I think a clause of that kind is bound to operate harshly against a tenant. If anyone reads through all these conditions, I think he is bound to come to the conclusion that they are really too harsh for the tenants, which makes it more than ever necessary that they should have, like other smallholders in Scotland, the full protection of the Land Court, which has done so much to help smallholders in that country.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This is again an attempt to get more people on the land. It does not repeal the old system at all, and whichever is the better system will survive. This is getting people more into the idea, not so much of farming in the sense of running a big farm. It is a mistake to have a smallholder on a small holding imitating the big farmer. He cannot do it. You want to have a neighbouring market, so that the man can sell direct to the consumer. Look at what it has meant for small holders for hundreds of miles round London that they can come and stand at the roadside and sell to the motorist fresh asparagus, strawberries, and so on, and get shop prices for their stuff. It enables a man to carry on with a very small area of cultivation. I hope that what the Noble Lord has said with regard to these men without capital will be kept in mind, because, after all, a man of character, capacity and knowledge is far better in all walks of life than a man with mere money. He will always get on better. I remember that Pierpont Morgan said he never asked for security, but he asked what a man was. He was a banker, and the bankers used to bank on character, not on capital. The modern banker, of course, has become a bond broker. The man under this Bill will be a man of character.
Another point is this, that one of the methods of settlement should be to get a
man who is also engaged in industry, so that he will have a bit of land as well. I knew one man, a coal pit winder, who started in a small holding. I knew him very well, and he carried on his pit winding and used to cycle a good many miles while developing his small property as well. That is how to get the capital to go on with. I hope that hours of labour in future will be shortened, and that people will have more leisure. You want men to have a bit of land and leisure to do something of their own. They cannot go to the pictures or to the greyhound races every night of the week, and the proper use to make of their leisure is to have small holdings on the land in addition to their daily industry. Under such circumstances the question of family allowances, old age pensions and so on would be settled. If a man has a large family, he simply plants more potatoes and has a pig or two more.
If you go back to Elizabethan times, you will find that no farmer was allowed to hire a man to work on his land unless he gave him at least an acre for himself. If you go to our sugar cane colonies, in the West Indies, you will find that you are not allowed to hire a native unless you give him a grant for a cow so that he can support himself. In all our agriculture in this country every farmer's man should have some bit of land of his own that he can cultivate alongside his cottage. He should be a smallholder in his own right to some extent, as well as a farm worker. That used to be the case some 70 or 80 years ago. I have been told that by olders farmers. What we really want in this community of ours is to have more men working for themselves, and who have something of their own. Wage-earning is no good. We want some form of distribution, something that a man will have that he can look at and say, "This is my own, not only my native land, but my own land," something that he can work on; and that is what this Bill will lead to. It is a small beginning, but it contains the germ of a great development. I congratulate the Scottish Office that it should be in their time, when they have a mixture of a Conservative and a Liberal in charge who have not grown mouldy—that it is these two who have brought this into existence, and I think it heralds a great future.

10.12 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): A Debate which ends with kindly references to the present Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary can hardly be otherwise than pleasing to the Government, but I think the House will agree with me that the Debate, though it has not been a long one, has been from first to last extremely interesting. Although there have been criticisms of various sorts and from various angles directed at the provisions of the Bill, there has been a strong undercurrent of support of the principle of the settlement of a larger number of people in suitable conditions on the land of Scotland. On the Third Reading, I would not wish to go into great detail in answer to such criticisms as have been made, but I would like to assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and his friends that in adopting the ordinary agricultural tenure, which, the House will recollect, is not a statutory innovation, but which has been a possibility since the 1919 Act was passed, we are adopting it because we believe, as my right hon. Friend and myself have attempted to say on the various stages of the Bill, that it is more suited for the holders and the type of holding and the locality of the holding that we propose to erect under this Bill.
In doing that we are undertaking no unjustified sailing into uncharted seas. Not only do the provisions of the 1919 Act allow that, but the Nairne Committee, which dealt with land settlement in Scotland, specially recommended, at all events so far as the Lowlands are concerned, that the ordinary agricultural tenure should be adopted. My own experience as a Member for a good many years of a constituency largely Lowland, in which land settlement had been conducted on the small landholders principle, emphatically brought to my mind the conclusion that, so far as the Lowlands are concerned, this system of a dual ownership and all that it implies was not understood and - appreciated and was the cause of misunderstanding, misapprehension and friction between the Department and landlord, and the tenant and small landholder.
There is another point which is germane. We are satisfied that the compensation rights under the agricultural
tenure system are at least as good as they are under the landholders system. Under the agricultural holding tenure all that the tenant has to do is either to get the consent of or to notify the landlord, where that action is necessary, and he is then sure of getting such compensation as the Land Court will award him; whereas, under the landholders system, the compensation must be for improvements which are suitable for the holding, and no prior agreement on the part of the Department can take away from the Land Court the unfettered power to decide for themselves whether a particular improvement is or is not suitable for the holding. Up till the moment of the decision by the Land Court the smallholder is, in fact, in doubt whether he will get any compensation at all. My right hon. Friend seems to regard that as a joke. Men who have suffered from that provision will not agree with him.
It has been suggested, though only tentatively in this Debate, that the protection which the revision by the Land Court of rents arranged for under draft leases will under our system be less effective than had the Land Court been operating under the landholders system. I will not go into the theoretical arguments on that point, because the Land Court in its 1932 Report elaborated the principle upon which it proceeded in reconsidering the rents under the agricultural holdings tenure, a duty which had been imposed on them by the legislation of the previous year. I will venture to quote from their Report, because it is important that it should be on record in this Debate. On page 11 of the 1932 Report, the Land Court state in categorical terms the principle on which they proceeded in reviewing rents under the 1931 Act. I think that when I have read it my right hon. Friend in particular will, if he is not familiar with it, feel that it satisfies all the possible requirements that he desiderates. They say:
In applying our judgment to these questions, in order to arrive at what would be a reasonable rent under present agricultural conditions fair both to landlord and tenant, we made estimates of the capital value of the tenants' interests in the farms, as well as estimates of the probable annual income and expenditure. We found that the resulting net income available to meet
a minimum allowance in respect of interest on capital, as well as rent and taxes, could no more than cover these items, but over and above that we had to keep in view that the tenant had a home and remained employed in his true vocation. At present prices of farm produce there was no margin at all, but the possibility of improvement could not be left out of account, and such an improvement would, of course, automatically enhance present low capital values. In fixing the rents we kept these considerations in view.
That is to say, they kept in view that the tenant should get interest on his capital and a fair return for his labour. I would ask my hon. Friends who have properly interested themselves in this question not to ask me to reread that quotation, but to read it for themselves on page 11 of the 1932 Report.

Sir M. WOOD: Is not that the Land Court's method of of dealing with it, and is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman is not going to allow them to do it?

Mr. SKELTON: I have attempted to explain, but I fear the question makes it necessary to do it in extenso, that the Land Court, since 1931, apart from its old function under the Landholders Act, had the function of being an arbitrator if there was disagreement on the question of rent under the ordinary agricultural tenure. Under this system we give the tenant the option of going to the Land Court without waiting for possible agreement or disagreement. The quotation which I have read states categorically the principles upon which the Land Court proceeds when it has the duty of revising rents under the conditions which will exist in our smallholdings. I hope I have made that clear.
Let me turn to some of the other speeches. My right hon. Friend and myself appreciate very much what was said by my Noble Friend on the subject of the possibility of allowing some of these holdings to be occupied by men of small capital. That suggestion was warmly supported by my hon. Friend opposite. We have great sympathy with that suggestion, and in general it may be said that it is possible and desirable to strike a balance between the two factors of a man's skill and his capital. The greater a man's skill perhaps the less his capital can be; but on that topic I would add this further word. The
House is aware that in the last year and a-half we have been developing a system of one or half-acre plots for unemployed miners. It has not been possible, as all concerned know, to promise the men who take them that the plots are a half-way house towards smallholdings, but this experience has already been gained, and I think it is relevant to my Noble Friend's suggestion: it is very remarkable to note the rapidity with which energetic men working these plots collect an appreciable amount of farm stock. When it comes to a question of putting men into holdings the stock which they have got together on the plots will, of course, count as capital. I already know of one or two plot holders whose plots provide very appreciable capital towards stocking a larger holding, and although we cannot give a promise that the possession of a plot is a necessary step towards a holding it is already clear that it may be a bridge towards it, inasmuch as it enables the plot holder to build up a stock of produce.
Another point of importance that was mentioned concerns part-time holdings. There, again, I venture to refer the House to our experimental plots. They were always given to unemployed men, but it has happened that some of the men have got back to employment, or have been back in employment from time to time, and we have found that where the man has either got a wife who is keen upon animals and cultivation or young sons who are keen, that even if the man himself gets back to employment it is not impossible to carry on the cultivation of these half-acre plots. So, again, in an experimental, tentative and provisional way we have, I claim, gained experience towards the solution of problems which, in my judgment at least, as well as those of some of my hon. Friends, are problems of the distant or even of the near future. With regard to the nature of the houses, a question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart). His recollection of what occurred in Committee is correct. The number of fireplaces in a house is under review. I am not sure that we have decided that every room is to have a fireplace, but we are quite clear
that there ought to be a larger number than was provided for in the original plans. I have dealt now, I think, with the main questions which have been raised. I do not agree that the Department of Agriculture deserves, as landlord, the harsh strictures which have been applied to it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Not the Department. What I said was that they are as sympathetic as officials can possibly be, but I blamed the system of Departmental administration as opposed to that of the private landlord.

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend is a private landlord and I am not, and I am perhaps not able to judge accurately in the matter. I am satisfied from my own knowledge of the Department that the officials are as conscious of their duty to their tenants as any landlord can be, and I would not be doing right to those who are exercising that duty, and who are doing most valuable work in Scotland, if I allowed to pass unchallenged a contrast which, I think, is utterly unjustified, and which should not have been made by one who has had insight into the working of the Department. I do not think it is right that an observation which can be so easily misunderstood should have been passed.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do not deserve the strictures which the hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to pass. I have made it absolutely clear in my speech, as he will see if he will be good enough to look at it in the morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the officials over whom I had the honour to preside for some time were as sympathetic, as keen on doing justice to the tenants and of making a success of the land settlement schemes as any officials can possibly be. I made that abundantly clear. I am amply entitled to say that the system of State ownership of holdings is not in itself a guarantee of fairness to tenants, and that an independent Land Court is necessary to safeguard the interests of the tenants, whether they are under State ownership or otherwise.

Mr. SKELTON: There is no Member in the House whom I would less Tike to misrepresent than the right hon. Gentleman, but I took down the words that he used, and I think he gave the House to infer that there was a standard of severity in the Department as landlord from which the private landlord was free. I do not propose to go further into details.
I think the Bill passes with the general good will of the House. It is an effort, and an important and a regulated effort, to develop land settlement in Scotland along lines upon which the investigation of the committee and the experience of administration have seemed to show the way. I am sure that the House and the country will be only too glad if its success is in great and full measure. I agree entirely with what my Noble Friend said that in Scotland, where our industrial enterprises, partly through geological and partly from historical causes, are built upon the heavy industries, we must make a special effort to secure that the welfare of the country counterbalances the distress of the urban districts. So far as this Bill will do that, we shall be right in saying that we, in our day, have done something for our native land.

FINANCE [GUARANTEED LOANS].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Treasury under the said Act in respect of a loan issued solely for the purpose of providing for the redemption before maturity of another loan in respect of which a guarantee has been given (whether before or after the passing of this Resolution) by the Treasury, subject to the Treasury having been satisfied before giving the first-mentioned guarantee that the substitution thereof for the guarantee of the loan to be redeemed would benefit the Exchequer; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any moneys paid in or towards repayment of any sum issued out of the
155
Consolidated Fund as aforesaid."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Southby.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.